&^< •f^r-D/. IN THE HIGH e©BBT OF <JBDie&T8EE ar BBIASPWt (©8) WKXT BETITIQN B©.2^-77@F 20Q5 ' sssssa ' •• t^tltdA^zalS/o sN:i Htolad IbraMa ,aged aboat ^^yeal;s» oisetapata.oa l&ssas^ fe.'©Ba^;fI,;:,Stg^r.;S<ii atlC '^ , > ''•.; Beparfe®ent»rea±elefit s£ 3®4» itoaa^g Boa^ VlE savarkar NaQae^ Biaa^r» Raj,pac (CG)* PETITieNEa i;h.,, ,/^ svs's:y A H -^"i» 2. Sfeafee of ehtiafctlsgarh» fehEO<s®&felae gecretaEy Deparfemeat @f Higlaer Bdacat±®h»HaatBa3.ay» '- :B«.K.s»SBildlng,Ea.a.gar ^( C®).» • . ' I • ^'•ii'^: .^ State of MadbyaPradeslit tbroagb ttee Sesre-bazy Higiwr BdiacafcAoa, Hantralay» ValIa]ay-:BhcwaB».8-^ Bbopal tHPl< .•-.• : !: : . ^' .•.,:/•';::^^' B£SBOHBENTS WRIT PETITI0N ^NBEER &RTICSES 226/227 QF THB C©HSTITEJTI©W.©F BaBI& '. : 1» Parfeicalars o£ the pe^ XI-HC-78 viCT|"yi«|in<i,yT?|<tt<KS,R«l'<iy ^^M^^.^/f&......^ 'mwTas'CT^""""""""""""""""""" .MT^CTWftqW wroii^niOTN Sarma 3n^9T^?^('^[tgps) S^RiriR^tesn^?! Educbtion issilied 29.0G.200S—- Mr. Awadh Tripathi, tearn^d Mr. Akhil Agrawal, le^ Ghhattisgarh, . .Lp^ned.counsel for the] empl6y©eof M;P. Hjgher M.F. tiigher Educatton Anudaah petitioner was treated as emploft ' Departifient 6f Higher Educatior< of the petitioner was fiked at th{ 03.07.2002 (Annexure P-2) issi|ie( State of Madhya Pradesh. T^i petitioner apprehends that he v>|l salary has been fixed at Rs.' the order dated 03^07.2002 (A|- petition on 24,04.2005. The delay in filing the petition wheiji 2002. The petitioner seeks lib^rt^ totheauthorities. .. ] The petitioner is granted eoncerned authorities and the| representation with a period of 3| fn view of the foregoing, t( lib^rty <Bi<(F»<ni*ir><»T^&^'<<Ri*gi'( ^>3!f^t3n^!r[ ^d counsel for the petitioner. |rned Panel Lawysr for the Stafe of Ipetitionersubmits that the petitioner was Anudaan Aayog. On dissolution of Aayog with effect from 01.02.1994, the ^eeof the Directorate of Higher Education, j, Governmentof Madhya Pradesh. Salary fe scale of Rs. 1320-2040 videorder dated by the Higher Education Department, (e petitionerwas getting hissalary. The ^ill not be entitled to get increments as his )-2040. The petitioner has not challenged hnexure P-2) titl the filing' of the present p^titioner is not in a posiliQnto explain the the salary was fixed long back in July, of this Court to make a representation iberty to make a representation before the concerned authorities may eonsider his months from the date of application. ie petitiori stands disposed of. -3? Sd/- - Satish K. Agnihotn Judge