BEFORE HON”ELE STATE IADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNaaL BENCH {ET MIPUR (M.P.3 ' W§,gu?e/0f 0.?» w?<i/ of 1998 1) Smt. Uma Sam, d/o Sbri Valad Ram, R/o Vinylage—arjuni. P.0.Gorhapar, Tah—Gunderdehi, £istt-Durg (M.P.) 2) Paréeshi Ram Chanarakar. s/o Shri Gunjalal PoshG andhi Go rkapar, Tahsil_Gund£rdehi, Distt—Durg (M. P.) 3) Pramd Kumar Shama. s/o Shri Dauva PraSad Shanna. aged 32 years. Ex %\dhoc—£xssistant Teachers‘ R/o Village-@rjunda, Post-:Arjunda, Tah—Guncierdehi , Distt—Darg (FLPJ 4} Shankar Tiwaxi s/o Shri Man Kamna Prasad Tiwari. aged about 38 yrS, Ex..@dho<>.Assis-tant Teacher, R/o Villgga—Dha ngacn, po st—&ndhiyarkhor, Tah. N avagarh. Di stt—Durg (MnFJ 3 VERSUS 41.3221. N m icm .._g gs 1) State oze Medhya ,Pradesn, Through-Secretary. ”‘fSChool E$1cation, Govt.of M.P. Mantral aya, Vallabh—Bhawan, Bhopal (”LPc} — 2a; 21 Joint Director, Publi c—Instm ctions, Durg Eéucation Division, mrg (MIP.) 3) Joint Di recto r, Publ i c.I nstru ctions, Raipur Ewcation-Divisicn R aipur (M. P.) 4? Chaimamcum Collector, Selection Cemrrittee, Constituted for I'Appointment of JAdhoc—Teachers, Collect-,0 rate, Durg (Mupt) 53 Deputy Directo r, Public Instzu ctions, Durg Eaucation, Di stri ct—Durg (Ma P.) DETIAILS OF APPLlCKTiQN (U/s 19 9£ the gmmstrative Tribunals Actdgas) maimm amenésmmiai QC” Sinha 2.2.2010 Shri V.G. Tamaskar, c Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Dy. By this petition, the pe respondents to consider the identical and covered by t Administrative Tribuna! in th State of MP. & others, pas Learned counsel for t consider this factuai aspect a or ad-hoc employees whii applicabiiity of earlier directio others (supra). Learned cou subsequently, the Governmer Be that as it may, if th the grievance as setout here take decision in the matter in z With this direction, the unsel for the petitioners. ovt. Advocate for the State/respondents. itioners have sought issuance of direction to r cases on the ciaim that their cases are e order passed by the Madhya Pradesh matter of Malikram Sidar 8. others Vs. d in O.A. No.624/1997. e petitioners submits that respondents may to whether the petitioners are daily wagers considering their cases with regard to issued in the matter of Malikram Sidar & sel for the petitioners further submits that t has framed scheme for regularization. ‘e petitioners approach the respondents with and above, respondents shall be at liberty to accordance with law on its own merits. betition is disposed of. i) 7 Sd/— \ lManindra Mohan Shr Judge k i t ivastava