wa & s ^•^===— ^ L... ^ BEFORE HOEI'BLE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BENCH__AT RAIPUR t^J ^L2i Orxgxnal Application ^o_^_ /2000 Smt» Gauri Pandey^ Wife of Shri SeN.Paadey, Sapervisor^ Department of Mahila Bal Vikas Bastar^ District Jagdalpar 5. Chhattisgarh Versas 1< State of M.P. Throagh Secretary^ Mabila Avam Bal VikaSgi Ilantralaya, Vallabh Bhawan^ Bhopal <. 2« State of Clahattisgarh, ThrQugh Secretary^ Mahila Avam Bal Vikas, Ifentralaya, D^KoS»Bhawan» Raipar^ 3^ Projecfc G.fficer, Integrated Child Developnent, Project^ Bastar« FfledtQday Ate.::%SI® ^yia.Li^^.... by 5A/;.5£S..b.P.<W-..^.acl^ fw^SSlefw, M. P. St^e /^tot; Tri^unal, RAtPUH. ^ <. ^» Applicant Non-Applicants APPLICATION U-NDER SECTION ^9 OF ^MINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT 1985. :C-22 3^?r'^r t^iw^nf?? ^v^ <it^a rw- l1"*1^^ 's^ v<ii^i<n^. ^nl^^Ko, [®i<ni<i<i< 3TT^T 'W^K ^A^..^.:.^^^ fN^sr' ^TI^T ^^n^n: ^?[ chi^f<n<fli <-ii^<nf'^ f^^l <P?l^l< ^3rf^m3TI^T SB: Hon'bte Shri Manmdra Mohan i a.TO^KIr^ Shri Sachin Singh Rajpirt, cour Shri ArvinjJ Dubey, Panel Lawy^ WSth the consent of learned cc| finally. By this petition, the pettioner payment of salary forthe montfts Augi] August. 2000, total 8 months. It has petitioner has been stopped upoh Sharma, ^sistant Statfetical Officer| representation was submitted by the| deckled bythe concerned authorities. irhrastava.J. 1 for the petitioner. lr for the Statefrespondente. unsel for tiie parties, the petiton is heard las prayed Tor issuance of a direction for ist & November, 1999 and March. 2000 to ?n stated in the petition tttat salary of ttie sineous pressure of one Chandra Prakreh due to malafide intention. Though, a petffioner, the same has not yet been From the return filed by the rest>onden1s, it is disctosed. whfch fiact was not disclosed in the petition, that vide oi^er dated 04-05-2000, the (^titfoner wws transferred but she did not join duii^s at fte transferred ptece. Departmental action was initiated against the pe1itfc|ner. The peUUoner was ate»o placed under suspension. Finally, an ord^r was [passed in the departmental enquiry m 23-12-2000. From the return fited by Ute respondente, it is found that in respect of the period, for which. salary has been|claimed, certain notices were tesued to the petitioner. From the return. it is not cpear that any specific order, with regaid to pertod relating to whteh salary has bee|n claimed, has been passed. In this view of Ihe matter, wfth^ut commenting upon the merits of the case with regard to enti^ment of the peti(oner, respondent authorities may cormider fte petitioner's claim for grant of salajy in respect of the periGxl mentioned in the petition. The petitioner may submit a l|esh representation in continuation of earlier re|yesentation (Annexure A-1). Respj^ndent No.3 shall consider the case of ttie petitioner and pass speaking order ^ith regard to claim of the petitioner. If the [Tft^ ^R^^f ^n^r'^r f^iicn ^l§^i [^l Tumanc ^ -S^ ^MH^. ^Tl1y41^. ^<ni<iy 3^?r xra^? ..^2(li'^.L!.^05 "^ 200 ^(wrir ^Hra» I^ST' <=hNf<rt<i1rl +ll44<nf'? f^^ iPtl^K ^'3lf^W3TT^r grievance remains unredressed, tt v^\ be open for the petittoner to teke recourse to such remedy as may be available |o him under the law. Wrth th? aforesakl directfon, ^e petition stends disposed of. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Jude [Tft^'^f7^f