\ 1 T: :: .:/: ^.•"; ....: •••''.''•—^ f *• .'... .-•.•• .' . . ....•/ .'^. ;.•.'••••; •• .. ..(;'•Fifet'ioday- b'^ ^n^- ^ ' - • " ' :':: ' • . l' ' * ,' j For RM'sWa^, 1 i^ P^Siata^.n.fHhunal, 1 ' ' • RAI'M. IN THE M.P. STATE fluMINtSTRATIVE TRIBUNftL, PENCH flt-B&ieyB—(Wrfh-)- aRTGINiiSiLftPPLICATIONNO. OF 1998. fc^P^'f^-S'ISl^ EORIGINfiL flPPLICATION U/S 19 OF THE M.P. STATE ADMINISTRflTIVE TRIBUNAL ACT. 1985) HPPLICflNT ; PRfiDEEP KUMfiR WANI a aged years, son df Shri PRABHAT DANIEL WANl, Driver, office_- •fo the Director Geology & mining, 'Khanij Bhawan'. Raipur (M.F'. ) VERSU8 )ENTS : 1. STATEOF MfiDHYA .PRfiDESH, Through : Collector, Raipur (M.P.) 2- The Director, Beology & Mining, •Khanu Bhawan' Raipur (M.P.) 3. Deputy Director, Beology & mining, *k;hanih Bhawan' Raipur, (M.p. ) •^ ORI6INAL fiPPLICATION UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE M.P S-TATE HDHINISTRfiTIVE TRIBUNAL ACT. 1985. 1. PARTICULfiRS OF THE APPLICANT ;- As dt-ifailed abovein cause •t'.itle, 2. PfiRTICULfiRS OF THE RESPONDENTES !- As de'tailed abo'.'e in the cause titie. PflRTICULARS OF ORDER A6AINST WHICH ORIGINAL. fiPPLICATION IS FILED ;- Si) ORDER No.. s- (i.S 386S7/65/E:stablis5h(nent/N-Sl .-202/73 Raipur (li) 3477/-84/Estab.-17N.SI.229/87 Raipur. (i;i.) DfiTE s- . XURE |2|-2 (i) 26.10.83 (ii' 1.12.°2 with r&ference to fiNMEXURE; fi-i and ANNEXURE A-S r£3spect.iv6?J.y.: (iii) ISSUEED BY s- • - Qffics of ths Diractors Ss^ology & r'lining;, Madhya F'radesh Raipur. • ^!»!ef s,-fs'?! s-'."!Ss:'!'!,i.a'M- *ll*loi ?SW vsvti 'oiqirtq, t»-(ll<H<l<»,Rrtl'<-iy'< rfg, .....^.^2.2.^/^.. V^20 3II^9T qa^ (lyijcl^j) a.IT^nSTlS-litb iTafraii^sTtfrii* Smha s^arw^ifer SII^ST SB: Hoa'bte Shri Maniadrla Mohaa Shrivastava.jJ. 2.02.2010 SbriY.C. Sharma, Shri Ajit Singh, Paue| It is stated at the «ni«tn<!llxmnV't'ls'^l tKilt^lt ^srf^rsfi^r cdunsel for the petitioner. Lawyer for fhe State/respondeats, s |Bar that during pendenc}7 of petition, petitioner has already be^n regularized in semce. However, the petitioner subiaits tbat he has certain claiins wifh regard to pay- scale consequent upon re^ularization which the respondents inay consjder. .idefeti Taking lato couside^ation fhe submission made by leamcd couasel for the petitionerj petition reserviug Ubertyl respondents forredressal^ recourse to remedy availab I deeiu it expedient to dispose of the to the petitioner to approach the fhjs grievance, ifany, subsisting. Needless to emphasijze that if the grievance of the petitioaer remaias tui-redressed, it vf^ould be open for fhe petitioner to take .e to him under the law. With fhis directioa, t(ie petition staads deposed of, Sd/- :-,lraMotlan Steivastava Judge 1 • n IS ^K SSK^ BBI ^a ^l H '.'•Si'~''S!tcSSSfl 611 IB8 iB B8