vs^ss :^.;:.^;.^ 9 l;ii ^^ii^ Before Hoo'ble St.ate Aclminj.strat.J.ve 'Bribunalta'abalpuE. Original ^Eplieation No^uo-'^1997 ^pplicant; Dinesh Kumar Makbija. Vs- Non-applicantss . State of M.P. and others. DE-rAILS OF AEPLICATION JU/S 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act.1985) lj>Particulsrs of the anolicant; i/Naire; ii/Date of births v/Designations Dinesh Kumar Makhija 30.9.1968 iii/Father's name; Shri Rajkumar t''Iakhijs» iv/gualificationi M.Sc, (CheiidstrY) ftsstt.Professor vi/Date of appointments 24,09.1993 vii/Office-address; Govt.N. C.J.Art-s commerce & Science College,Dallhi-Rajhars<: "'iStt-Durg (M.P.) 2.Particulars of the nor^-aDDlican£s; i/S-kste of Madhya Pradesh Through- Secretary, Cbllegiate Education Branch, Vallabh Bhawan. Bhopald'&.P.) ii/Principal< Go-vt.N.G.Jain Arts Gorpmerce & Science College, Dalli-Rajhara,Dis'fct-Durg(I-a') . 1—<^<K l-fiC-78 <dTd »«i«irt«, t»T['i1tl<l(.,Rrtltiyt ^,,^; ....fe..)?.iV.J..t.^..?.?. ^,20 3ii^9i 'ra^p ('j^fg^s) an^TTO R-iicb cTW3II$?I*<li* B^RITSR^fitTSD^ST tbl«fri41'i11*ldT^ fo'd •tluit^K ^si^qgn^sT SB: Hon'ble Shri ManEndila Mohan Shrivasfeava. J. Assistfeut 1.02.2010 Shii V.G Tamaskar, Shri Arviud Dubey, Pau|s Heard. Short issue raised for petitioner has claimed thajt respect of the period from) which he worked as interun order which was 1994 in O.A. No.230/1994| Accordiag to fhe petiti<| him though under aa fhe result of the case. he is| payment of salaiy would b| offhe Constitution oflndia) Learued counsel for petitioner is not eutifled t<j instant petition itself is n< claiin arises out of fhe iateb which was subseauenth discontiiiued froni the teaj application for regularizatic O.A. No. 1038/97. Jn fhis co^nsel for the petitkiner. ;1 Lawyer for fhe State/respondents. ^onsideration ia fhis petition is that fhe he is entitled for payment of salaiy in December, 1993 to July, 1997 durm$ Professor (Chemistay) by virtue ofaa bassed iu his favour on 3td Februarv', (Aanexure A-l). >ner, once, work has been taken froru direction of fhe Court, irrespective of entitled for paynient of salary aad non- ^ arbitrary aiid is wiolation of Article 14 iateilun iatelriui ttte respondents/State submits fhat his paymeut. He furttier submits fhat ^t inauitainable for the reason that the order passed in O.A. No. 230/1994, vacated aad the petitioner was ;birig job. The petitioner filed aaofher |in the services which was registered as [iew of the niatter, ffae petitioner is not •"l ^I-SC-78 \jw| •^iwiri^l, yalwis, Rrti'<iy<< 'wi®r$^?n^ siitsTcffTfSare naiT 311^91«blfi* Smlia 3II^?T1^P (yilgqcs) W^20 s^aiiiR^ifeiaii^sT -? <bl<|[ri41-f *fl*friT^" fe»cl•((uits;it ^sif^'iaii^si entitled to salary as he cij>utmued wifhout aay nglit to hold the post only bvvirtue ofan iaterim order. Haviag considered fhe Irival subinissions of fhe parties. I am incliued to aUow the pet^tion. It caanot be disputed that the petitioner did dischai^e th^ duties aad functions assigned to the post of Assistaut Professibr fhough under fhe uinbreUa of an iaterim order passed by fhe| Tnbunal on 3.2.1994. It is not fhe case of the respondents fhat tt|e petitioner obtaiaed iaterini order by inisleadiag fhe Court or bh^ olaciaR anv false fact ta fhe Court. Petitioner haviag worked 4'Q the post is entitled to payinent of salarv: else fhis woTild aidount to violation of Article 14 of fhe ered fhat fhe respondents shall uav Coustitution of India. Consequenfly, it is or4 salary to fhe petitioner ia |respect of the period duriag which he worked under the uuibreUal of aa iuterini order dated 3.2.1994. It is however inade clear that|this would not entitle the petition.er to claim auy ofh.er benefits V^e pay-fixation, seiiioriiy or any claim. relating to reinstatement/re^ularization. The petition is accordin^ly aBowed to the extent and ia fhe inaiiuer as stated above. Manindra Mohac Shrivasfava Judge . f