tW/éwwr AFPLIckTIDK UNDER $ECTION 19 OF THE ADMENIéTBATEVE TREBUEAL ACT,1985. g; f c {. m} i 0.«"A.N0.2 E3 / $ of 9‘7 For ns§ in the'Tribunal's office. Date of filing or Date of Receint 27 /3'/'& 7 by post. Regigtration No. msu N'\vx‘ a h\ pm‘x MA w”v , ;a» vv k, xiv V wvv x‘. ;" ,\ REGJETR£R £N TEE MADHXA FRADESH AD%INISTRATIVE TREEUN$L JAB$LPUB. BETWEEN 2L. Annlicant z Paragram Baghel, san of Shri Sadh Ram Baghel, aged about 37 years, Laboratory t’at‘hendant, Govt.Deg1°ee College, Champa District Bilaspur. —Versus— 2. Non-Applicant‘g : l. Sutate of 1\I.P.‘chrough Secretary Higher Education Department M.P.Bhopal. 2. $dditional Director Eigher Education Directorate Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (MJ‘) J 3. Principal, Govt.Degres College, Champa Dis’ariei: Bilaspur (MP) /xka Writ Petition !S! No. 1671 of 2005 Petitioner Parasram Baghel Vexsus r Rsspondents State of M.P. (now C.G.) &. others (SB: Hon’ble smi Satish K. Agnihom' J.) Shn' Sanjay Patel, Advocats for th6 petitioner. Shn' N. N. Roy, Panel Lawyer for the respondents. ORDEmom) (Passed on this 1 1‘11 day of March, 20 10) Heard. 1 1. Leanned counsel appean'ng for the petitioner submits that by order dated 20.12.1996 (Annexure A] 10) the petitioner was promoted to the post of Laboratory Technician, accordingly he joined on 30.12.1996. Subsequently, by order dated 30.12.1996 (Annexure A] 14) the promotion of the petitioner was cancelled by the respondent No.2 without assigning any reason. Leanled counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the issue involved in the petition is decided in a similar matter Le. w.P,(S) 1667/2005 (Har Prasad Hansraj Vs. State of MP. 3:. others) by order dated 2nd February, 2010, wherein the writ petition was allowed with cost and the respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner, therein, for promotion to the post of Lab Technician as on the date when his juniors were considered and promoted to the post of Lab Technician. It was further directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to consequential reliefs, flowing n‘om the order. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents] State does not dispute the above submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. In view of the above, this petition stands disposed of in terms of the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 1667] 2005 that the respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Lab Technician as on the date when his juniors were considered and promoted to the post of Lab Technician with all consequential benents. No order asto costs. p Sdf— . ,Satlsh K. Agnihetri a» i t t Judge ,