a^ ^^^o^ IN THE H.P.ST&EE ffiMBlISSi.fiFIVE TRIBUNAL SS.S.SS.'E'VB. O&IGINSL APPLICffPICN N0. /199^ appLicaiT Sukbi aam Meiiar, Son of 'S'hri.':~7':.^r^ . Bhukbay Mehar &ge& about 43 years u,.>*.*..-u. Resident of Villags Bhi;cila,post Sarora, <? BlocK Tilda, Distt. Raipiir (M.P.) Versus Soa^SPPLICSTS/ RSSPOiIDENTS .«.-> (1) State o£ Madhya pradesh, Through Secretary, school Edn.Nantrala Vallabh Bhawan^ BHQPffi (M.P.) (2) Gommissioaer of PtA>lic Instryctions, Madhya Pradesrh, Dlrecferate of Education, (HPI Office)i Near Chetak Bridge,, BHQPAL (M.P.) t-S^ "^I?iAs<<ns^,<B4jn.^^A--^fc<a--- APEIiICAI'tJICH .XJNiefi. SECTIOg 19 QP TtfE STA3S AEMINISTRariVE q'RIBUNMi AC3'*t985(13 C®1985) REJ®mTH ^RTICLES 1A~&-16- _ ~TNDIA. —~' : 1 -fciAls ;-78 ^^o 3wT "yiqirt^, t»-ri1'a<l<»,RrtKiyx *1Hdl ^qt^ •••Ll-•^-^52-z •?1•<?-•y-ftj-^20 3IT^9TV3V ('jclljcl^) 3II$?I®lR'fl<)' (i2I[3IlS?I»IliW e^iTSR^iflcisn^sT q>l<lfn<i1't li*inl";^" fax3 '([uit^K ^3lf^H3II^?T ss*- h 8B: Hoa'ble Sliri Maiiindila Mohan Shrivastava. J. l.02.2010 , counsel for the petitioner. li, Dv. Govt. Advocate for the Shri Rakesh Anfhont Shri Ajay Dwive( State/ respondents. It is subraitted fhat the present case are simi1p|i Vs. State ofMadhya Praldesh aad others (O.A. No.624/19971 . pie facts and question of law involved ia to that of Mallkram Sidar and others 1397 The Madhya Pradesh Adtnic judgment dated 22.3.1^97 petitioners thereiu. Leanjied permission of this Court consideration and disposa^ order dated 22,3.1997 pa^s others (supra) by fhe M4< Jabalpur. ^ninistrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, by its aUowed the appUcation of the coiinsel for the petitioner seeks |to approach the respondents/State for of the petitioner's case ia terms of the jsed in the case of Malikram Sidar aad [dhya Pradesh Adnunistrative TribTUial. Lcanied couiisel submits that earlier thev of cases where orders havi the agreeBient was only bv the Aufhorities iu the order is beiug nusuiterpre' Leamed counsel for fhe |Lppearfag for the respondents/State h^d agreed to this subinissiou ia nuniber ^ been passed. He fiirfher subnuts that wlfh reeard to fhe consideration of cases tnaaner directed bv fhe Court an.d this (ed by the Authorities ia various cases. i|ate does not dispute that it woiiU be ll-BC-78 ^Sv^ -OKIIW^, t»'CTl'<1<K»,RrtltiyX *llini B?TT^ 3II^?I ^a (ljclfj61<Ei) ^20 sii^^iwiR'ii* aaiT3ii^?r**fi<b tpi<ito»qli*)i*inTt"Is»cl•<(uit<;it i? dlRll 3II^?T £. Suaha. appropriate to dispose ol| directed iu W.P. (S) No.: this petition also on similar lines as 158)8/2005. Acc6rdiagly, the p| representation before fhe decision on the represen^ 22.3.1997 passed by the and others (snpra), in withiu reasonable tune. Leamed coiinsel for fhat fhe Authorities are at wifh law aad on fhe merits stitioner is granted Uberty to make respondents-State Aufhorities for fheir ation ia fhe light of the order dated 'ribuxial in. fhe case of MaUkrain Sldar ;cordaiice wifh. law, on its own nierit, the State says tfaat it may be clartfied Uberty to decide fhe case in accordance ofthe case, There is no need to veiy clear that the accordauce with law aad ^ive aoy such clarification as the order is AufUorities are obUeed to decide onlv in ofa the nierits offhe case. Wifh. the liberty as a^iresaid, the petition staads disposed of. No order as to cost. Sd/- /'! Manindra Mohan Shrivastava| .Tudge S ^!qp|(.^-/- 1:]]1 ItL