c ^ i^< SEFORE TciS STATE ADMZNISTRATIVE TRIBJSI&L, BENCH AT RAIPUR (M.P.) OrigiaajL Aj)@lication I>fo._^-?^_/2000 <"Cr-P^3 -^~<t'i~''-n^,' Cbandra Sekhar Dabey, Son of Shri tfday Ram Di.ibey, Assistaat Grade-III, Water Hanagement Dlvisioa, U.M. Sub Division No.2, Bbatagaon, District Dhamtari (M.Po) ... Applicant Versu.s 1. Stats of Madhya Pradesh Through Secretary, Department of Water Resources, t'tinlstry of Water Resouraes, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (MP) 2. Chief Engineer, M.S.P. Shaati Nagar. Raipur (M.P.) 3« Executive Englneer, Water Management, Division No.l, Akashwani, Raipur (M.P.) 4. Executive Engiaeer, Phase-II, Division, Work Division, Shanti Nagar, Bai.pur (H,P.) ... M-oa-Applicants APPLICATION UMDER SECTION 19 OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRr'BUCTAL ACT 1985. -HC-22 sn^r^ir (<•<[•* SS^I **<i<*i 'Hf?a ^"5? •^l''<|(rl'tl, ^Tfly'IS. fsKlluy _3'n^r TR^? _^L?..<^J.^.:.'^.^..'?:.T<r "H^ 200 .-"^l /'- i-lltRtTcdWqi ist^ss' sii^?t'^gTWHto Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, COL| Shri Arv'ind Dubey, Pane! Lavifyer for the Heard. Case of the petitioner is thal was entrusted additional work of 08-08-1988 to 02-04-1996. Petitiont duties of Store Keeper.. Petitioner respondent authorities and vidje Superintending Engineer required thfe concerning the oase of the petitioneilfor grant Learned counsel for ihe pe( petitioner had worked as Store Ke^ to 02-04-1996 has been verified M dated 24-06-1999 (Annexure A-2) Learned counsel for the petitioner ^ the Superintending Engineer, no Engineer. On the other hand, learned ^tc for appointment of the post of Store) charge of the post of Store Keeper| Learned State counsel further subrrli manual Vol.l Paral.045 [R(1)1, s^eo admissible to the accounts clerk woitki cbTEli(n4tT Hfq^' ^ 1s*<:]i ^fat^K ^? aipgri 3D^[ nsel for the petitioner. . State. while he was working as A.G.-ill, he ptore Keeper during the period from i^r claimed special pay for discharging si|ibmitted various representations to the j|e memo dated 28-05-1999, the Executive Engineerto send proposal of special pay. titioner submits that the faot that the t>er during the period from 08-08-1988 Sub Divisional Cfficer vide his letter ^ddressed to the Executive Engineer. [ubmits that even after the direction of [steps were taken by the Executive tate oounsel submits that neither order Keeper nor any order in writing giving was issued in favour of the petitioner. its that as per M.P. Works department ;ial pay of Rs.20/- per month is <ing as Store Keeper. ^ ^ s'^^1. t; XI-HC-22 ';te>yy'.??r '^"''l~r?3; an^r^ •f^wsn^i x^m 'grea •>t Tymans ^E? •^ll^l^'ll, dTilti'liB. fairlKHy 3T^T -^SR . \^.te;J.^'^l/6< J"^ 200 tiiwir 9>wvh sn^i^aiWHfet •L- There is nothing on record to 28-05-1999 of the Superintending examlned ;fc^e aase of the petifion required by the Superintending Engin In this view of the matter, th^ direction to the respondent authoritie^ in view of the memo dated 28-05-1939. <hl£lt(Tqnl'I^l^df ^ 'f^lZl -(.f^|^J.I< ^ srfigii SII^T tehow that in view of the memo dated Engineer, the Executive Engineer ^r or mad?. any communication as ter. petition is finally disposed of with a to consider the case of the petitioner Nlanindra Mosl2a"Sh"^^a Judge