"-T111 CF0000009091 •y fcc 5L/2-S ^ B 2HB HABEZa PRADBSH ADHINJBSiAir/B SBIBOITAL i JABALPUR M...NO._^^_OB. 2^C^-^^OH AppLffi.,iira' NOH tfPLTpANTSs Ad.i Harayan Slngh 2hakur, son of Shri Eam Singh Zhakur, Aged about 42 years, Hesident of Baijbhata, Pogt Office Kosaatara via Pandariya tahsil and DI.strict BilaspyrCChhattisgarh) -Versus- 1. Shri E.K.Vermas Prtoclpsl, Higher Secondary School, Pipariag Sajaands 2. Dr.(Shri) H.a.Shanaa, Digtrict Edncation Officer, (Chhattisgarh). APPLrCASIOH impBR SSGIION 17 Q IHSADMS_@CKA'EnrE._'iSm@AI< ACT^_1985. a' li^.j o •^^.s'\\Xl-HC-JS i~w •••• 'S^ -%ll'qic1<{, 8'flly'lia, fs<(-1|y^< ^....^^.^..^A...^^ 3II^?TTR?i' (''pi^P^?) i'!|MSa*!«|iEa« an^i w K.-fi* TTSTT 3TI^?l ^^iqi ?;?i!SiiL.-^Li.:. —3!<Jy-- TOnwafprsn^i fSB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mbhan Sbrlvastava, J.I 27.7.2011 SIui Abhay Tiwari, counse| None for fhe respondents ^ This contena.pt petition <fti^i^'iflTi iTTO^f ^' t^t -(.R'1-^K ^'sffinaii^; for the petitioner. Iven in fhe second round. jhas been filed by fhe petitioner aggdeved by order dated 18.7.^000 passed ia Origmal AppUcation No.866/94 by fhe State Admim; (trative Tribunal, Jabalpi-tr. Leamed counsel for the Tlietitioner submits that fhe order of the Court required fhe respond salary and iucremeat withm a ^eriod of fhree inonfhs from the date of receipt of the order and alscf made, @ 12% p.a, from the date| However, full payment which i^ paid. According to the petition) fhe ainount which is payable t' ;nts to make paym.ent of arrears of interest iu case payments are not offhe order tUl ttie date ofpavment. due to the petitioner has not been ;r, an amount of Rs.99,428/- has been paid to fhe petitioner, whejreas, accordiag to the petitioner fuU amount has not been paid. ^eamed counsel for the petitioner submits that fhe respondents Ijiave not made proper calculation of the petitioner. He further submits fhat a very low amount of intei^st of Rs. 11,871/- has been offered, but, fhe respondents are Uable ^o pay much more amount. Froin fhe reply ffled by after thc nrriflr mas pnssed by the respondents, it is revealed that le Tribunal. steps jrere_taken and y XI-HC—78 ~^s( ^Wv{°,, waiy'Ko, ia«niyy,< . Cs'^/'^^ /£o/o^- 3ii^?TTraqT (' an^l ^il R;-fjck <''nr aii^t *ii'* ^RiWHfei sn^i - z- chNM-^l tHtRTf ^* fs^l <^1-^.1< ^siRnan^r Praveen finaUy an amount of Rs.99,428y|. that fhe pettdoner was offere<|l petitioner did not receive, claiia^ni aiaount. has been made. It has been stated interest of Rs.11,871/-, but fhe fhat he is entifled to much more From fhe reply, I find iBiat the respondents proceeded to comply fhe order of the Court; i^iade their calculatton and payments have also been made. The tatefest which is being oSered, has not been accepted by the petitione^, as the petitioner is disputmg fhe calculation. In fhe opinion of fh|is Court, the order of fhe Court has beea compUed with. However, computation of amount payabl^ [tf fhere is a dispute with regard to to the petitioner, fhe petitioner is at Uberty to agitate this matter by plmg fresh petition before the Court. Accordiagly, with fhe libeijty as aforesaid, the petition is fiiiaUy disposed of. However, the aifiount of iaterest, which has been offered to the petitioner, shall be paid to the petitioner wifhin 3 monfhs from (he date thte ori^er is brought to the notice of the respondents. Sdf- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge