'^. ^ IN TI-fE M.P. STATE ftDHINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PENCH AT RAIPUR (M.P.) ORI6INAL fiPPLICftTION N0. OF 1998. (A>i9<.'-2-S'/?/OY y (ORIBINAL fiPPLICftTION.U/S 19 OF THE H.P. STATE ADMINISTRfiTIVE TRIBUNAL ACT. 1985) PiPPLICnNT SfiMEER KUMAR SfiHfi a aged years, son of Shri RflM KUMfiR SflHfi, Driver, office fo the Director Geology & mlning, "Khanij Bhawan'. Raipur (M.P.) PESPONDENTS VERSUS . 1. STfiTE OF MADHYA PRADESH, Through s Collector, Raipur (M.F' 2. The uirector, Beology & Mining, 'K'hanij Bhawan' Raipur (M.P.) 3. Deputy Dirsctor, Geology & mining, 'Khanih Bhawan' Raipur, (M.P. ) .ORIBINftL APPLICfiTION UNBER SECTION 19 OF THE M.P. STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIEUNfiL ftCT. 1985. "NlMEXURE: A-l piNNEXLlKE' A-2 1. PARTICULfiRS OF THE ftPPLICflNT :- As detailed above in cause title. ' PARTICULfiRS OF THE RESPONDENTES :'- fis de'baj.led abos'e in the cause title. PfiRTICULftRS OF ORDER ABAINST WHICH ORIBINflL ftPPLICATION IB FILED ;- (i; ORDER No . i - ( i ) 38'5'52/60/Establishment/N-Sl .-14/81 Raipur ( ii ) 3477/-84/Estal3.:-I/N.Sl .229/87 Raipur. (ii) DftTE. :- • (i) 27.1i3.83 (ii)-1.12.92 with reference to ftNNEXURE fi-1 and ANNE::XURE ft-2 respectively. , ' (iii) ISSUEED BY i- : Offrce of thei uiractor, GsolDgy Mining, Madhya F'radesh Raipur'., -9£'afe ^n''^W/)0'u^- '& *ii*idi ^qr^ ^wT^Tranwr, t»-(TI<M<i<»,Ririi'yy'< ^_W-^(?-J^-^'^^ W^20 gii^?rwR-fitb ciaiTSII^Tn'iro Tumane Slf^9f qa^ (lyf^d^i) g'RiTWt^ifScTaii^a SB : Hon'ble Shn ManindralVlohan Shrivastava,J 03-02-2010 Shri Vivek Rathode, couns^l for the petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Law^ With the oonsent of leaml heardfinally. By the instant petition, regularization and regular pay sc^l' In the return fited by the oompletion of minimum service a^ already been regularized and which have been given in the retijrn Leamed counsel for the pp been regularized and granted disposed of with liberty to approa|;h survives for consideration. Accordingly, the petition liberty to approach the him, still survives for consideratio(i. responde|its q>i<ifn<i1i *ii*fnT*f fe'^1 •(ful+5;l'( ^ OlKlf dtlS<l ter for the State/respondents. i^d counsel for the parties, the petition is [he petitioner was claiming benefits of 4le. i^spondents, it has been stated that after a^ oontingent employee, the petitioner has Sl'anted regular pay soale, the detaits of :Urn. )pitioner submits that as the petitioner has I'egular pay scale, this petition may be the respondents, ifany other issue still tands disposed of. The petitioner is at to raise any olaim which according to ^a^nsbrivastava Manindra^^