SiM"! ^0g:^?s^!3^s«ii assssRsatas^^ 18. THE PIADHYA PRflDESH' STATE AOTJN.ISTRAnW/ 'rR'IBUNAt 3ABSU?i3R. : : O.A. N0. |o<)^-t)F 1992. APPLICAMT Ram Kumar Pandya, aged a bout 32 years, Son of Shrl Gendlal, Un-skilled Assis-baflt* (Aa Kushal Sahayak), Office of.-the S.B.O., FQri, Irrigatlon Department, 3AGDALPUR , Rssidsnt of (fIebguda,-Para, Pump.House, 3AGDALPLR. Vsrsus RESPONQEMTS s 1. The Stata of "ladhya Pradesh, /.»- ^v^ ') 1. ?1h® S-fea*e <»£»«.(?.tbroagh tHrou.gh seereCary to—?oye^ofK»P., Trcigat ioa toparttBsat, 'BHOPAli. 2. chlef Bagtoset-(S&('t}, I.E-rigat.i^a" Bepart.HaR^t B-12- WaGfcana-Golon'9- Shivajt SaoarT" BBOPAJ,. 3. The sxec'dt.ive Sag&neer (i8<&H), Heayy Plant; c'jv 1a'Ees » Irrlaa-fcToa Beparti.aen'e, RAIPUt.l. , 4., The Szfe-Dlvisional Offic®r<S&i"l5, DETSILS OF ': ^ ^tfufeT, 3u&-DSVlsl.QB»>TAOSAfcyBR» 1. Farticulars of the Spplicant - Ss per causs title. 2. PaT-ticulars of the Respondents-Ss psr cause titls. 3. par'ticu.iars of the order against uhi.ch applicat.ion is made, ' Mon absorption as Driuer in Regular Scala. 4. 3urisdiction of the Tribynal: The appllcapt dsclarss that ths subjecl: mattsr of ths ordsragainst uhich he uan-fcs. redressal is ulthin -bhe jurisdiGtion of t ha Tribunal. 5. Llmitation : Tt?e applicant further declarss thafc ths application i~s~ .uithln ths llmitation preseribed inSection 21 of the ftdministrative Tribunals Act, 1985. 6. Faets of the Case s . The pacts of the cass are. giue be lou ;- contd^.2. -a...' ~ ; i. :iS 'fi t, t"^!lfi '?J;"rt , ^; 9 • ^==. 5 = '!«%..a-S ; E 3"."« ^•1y e& S l/UUKI Ul- Ui TTiSGARH: BiLASPUR •t 11 i lUiVtK WRIT PETITiON iSl N0.558/2006 Ram Kumar Pandya Versus State of M.P. and others siuple Bench: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aanihotri. J. P."'esent: - None for the petjtioner. Ms. Sunita Jaic, Panel Lawyer for the State. sd on this 22 day of September, 2009) The rnatter is catled for hearing twice. On both occasions, none appears nor any t'epreseniation is made on behaif of the pemioner. The petltioner may not De interested in the matter. (2) In view of the above, the -writ petition is dismissed for vvant of prosecution. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the petitioner rorthwith. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 3i; :.