ZN THE HB3H GOURT ©FJUDXSftTimE AT BILASPUR (C«G») WRIT PSTl'rlQN N©,1G/2-^0p 2002 8BTWEEN !• Ashok Singh chandel S/©Baja fihaiya Singh» aged aboiat 53 years, ©eei%>ationAssistanfe AaeGuntant, Zila sahaleari K^idriya Bank ]^ryadit»Ifead ©ffiee Bilaspur (GG). 2^ aajendra Kiimair Sharma S/Q Ramadhar Bandey^aged about S3 yars» ooeupation -^ssistant Aeeouiatant, » Ziia Sahalsari Kendriya Banls ryadife»Head ©ffice, Bilaspur (©3)« %TSrp3:ONERS »!i-N© ^^y ^•y..^' Zila Sahalari Kendriya Banle ^ryaSit, Head ©ffiGe»Bilaspur,thzough its General Manager* ^" '^ .1 WSlf PETITI0N TJNQEg ARTZCLBS 226/227 ©FTME ©©NSTI'CTJ® 3©^f-OP'::5-IN®1^ XI-HC-22 z-'n^i ^r f^TW^t^ w^^ ^fN '3~^1 i, ^TfrwT^, K<^Kry ^.£.//o...^Y^^ •f^^sy' 10-01-2003 Shri Rakesh Anthony, cpu|isel for fhe petitioner, Heard. The grievance of fhe writ part pffhe respondent-Baxik ia. ^N^Rh ^w^ ^ fixzt 'd^R "^3TJ^?3?T^T petitioner is to fhe inaction on fhe uot paying hxm salaiy in the same scale as has been paid to Ra4heshyam Sxagh & Narayaa Siagh Sengai\ Accordiag to the p^titioner, his case is siEmlar to Radheshyam Siagh, who h^ o|)taiiied an order m his favoiir from the Court of Depuly Registorarj Shahkad SansthayaM Bilaspur m Case No.8/64/98 arisiag out c^f a dispute luider Section 64 read with Section 55(2) of M.P. ^aliakarita Adhiiuyam, 1960. TIie petitioner, it is stated, has sulj mitted a reprcsentation before the concemed autiiority, which hajving not been considered, he has ! " approacfaed ttds Coiut for reUef. It is not disputed that thp petitioncr has a statouitory reincdy under the said Adhiaiyaia aad} fhat fhe revision of pay scale of Radheshyam Smigh was by v|bntue of an order passed by fhe Statutoiy Authority, That apart the said Statutoiy Authorily wiU be ia a position to appreciate ttie factual aspects, wrhich m.ay be iavolved ia fhe raatter, Jl_t. ^Jt:_^_ [Tn^ '^H^T B ^rN^r f^TN?3?T^T ^TfN:"^fi?r RoQhan "^w^ \'-"' "••'' 3ff^ TR% (.^t^^? ) jentertaia this writ petitkni at| Ipetitioner inay approach to jSectton 64 read with Section 55|2) of M^P/Bafaatearita Adhiaiy J1960 and tf such a dispufe is r^ised jwfll tiy aad dispose it of on its o^m With fhe above ^^^cIT^R'HtN ' In fhe above view of fhe m^tter, fhe Court is not mclined to fhis stage. If so advised, fhe Statutory Authority under appr|>priate observatibns stands d^po^ed of C6iisequen|tv hearing also staruls disposed 61 Certified copy as per Rulesj. ^T^T^; ^TOTf ^ -fe^ ife^K ^ v^f^? ^nt^T ,.^ before fhe said aufhorily, it :.l merits at an earlv date. aad directions, fhe petition I.A. No.3264/2002 for urgent Sd/- P.C. Naik Judge ^ ^-' GRPRJ—FS/311—1/2001—50,000. o.y- ^^