-^ /^2 l^ BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE.TRIBUNAL OF M.P. BENCH i RAIPUR ).A. N0. ^ I ] 1 998 "s(s^r APPLICANT Brahlad Singh Thakur aged 79 years,, son of Shri Raghunandan Singh^ Retired U»D.C.Land Record Section Rajnandgaon^ Residing in Village DHODIA ?•©• P,O.GAHDAl^Dlstt.Rajnandgaon« .-.( Versus \ NGN-APPLICANTS: (l ) Stat®Govt.ofM.P. Revenue Deptt, Through the Secretary Vallabh Bhawan BHOPAL. <f (2) The Commissioner, Raipur Division^Raipur. (J) Collector^ Ralpur. (4) The Collector^ Rajnandgaon^ (5) Joint Direetor, Pension Treasury and Accounts, Raipur Division^RaipuTo APPLICATION U/S 19 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT 1985. i".I -^ qp-f^T^^fT^ ^wT^nznc^, tp-alxi^Ko, Rcsmyx • • • • V^ •»••V. a^ • »'TT»•h •-•••'B ^a ••••••••W^20 3IT^$T^TRrlicb pCT^n^^TSRra? ^—^ -^ 3TT^9T q^F (I3^tg6R?) ^FHTW?^H 3TT^^T SB: Hoa'bie Shri Maniadra IISohasi Shrivastava, J. 11.2.2010 Shri Sonikaiit Verma, Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Heard. This petition has been| direction to fhe conceraed 4 respoudent No.l regardmg pensiouaiy benefits along wi\ 18 percent per aauum for with tlie order of the Goveniilient. From fhe retiim fUed N fiLmg of fhe petition before 9.2.1999 (Annexure R-l) by| graiited to fhe petitioner witl^ promoted. Furfher from (Annexure R-2) issued by the & Pension, it is found that di pension of fhe petitioner ia v^ tht Leaiiied counsel for to aforesaid order issued, on account of fixation of pa$ junior was were pronioted. 0l^lirt^flTl ^ll^rtT^lf fcid xRi\^i\ ^ 3lRl+l 3TT^5T :ounsel for tiie petitioner. awyer for fhe State/respondents. fUed by tlie petitiouer for issuauce of luthority to comply wifh tlie order of Iproforma promotion aiid revision of kh arrears of difierence with iaterest @ |;ausmg wrongful delay in. coiaplymg fhe respondents, it is seen fhat after tpie Tribunal, an. order was passed on |which proforma promotion has been effect from the date liis juiiiors were n|iemo dated 20th September, 1999 Deputy Director, Accounts, Treasuxy t-ection has been issued for rcvision of 3W of the order dated 9.2.1999. pept^ petitioner subniits that ia addition itioner was eutiUed to arreai's ofpay on fhe higher post frora the date his e also submits tliat tlie petitioner is f-2^ -BC-78 ^3-c/t|^(l<410<4 , yTH^^i<»,Rioi^-iyx '%„ wi^i^qr^ SYI^IT^TRFTte wnan^sTaiWR -.^ gTr^9Tq^i?(^citg6i^) WL20 g^TSn^cT^^T z.- entitled to paymient of iater| cbl^li^^ ^l^rtT^"VQ^ ^Kn^l^ ^ 3lKl<l 3TT^5T petitiouer is entitled to payn: such re-fixation. ?st ou tlie ainount liable to be paid ia view of graat of proforma j>romotion. Further prayer is fliat the |ent ofan'ears ofpension on accoimt of On the other haiid, |leai'ned counsel for fhe respondents submits fliat juniors to fhe tiie year 1965, but no griev| filed the petition before the account of delay, petition c< >etitioner were promoted way back in 3iice was raised by fhe petitioner. He rribunal, whereia it was held that on dd not be entertame.d. It was furfher held fhat ia view of tlie ^ct fhat fhe petitioner was retired, dii'ectiou was issued for settl|ng his claim. Thereafter, respondents considered fhe claim aad ha^e graiited proforma promotion to ftie petitioner directmg notional ^xation of pay on fhe higher post vide order dated 9.2.1999. It is al4o submitted that m view ofthe memo dated 20th September, 19^ pension has also been dircctd been passed in the year li 9 (Aunexure R-2), tlie petitioner's d to be revised aad that onler having ?99, petitioner is entitied to revise pexision. I have considered the|rival contentions inade by leamed counsel for the parties, It is not disputed fhat |tlie petitioner did not chaUenge his supersession. The petition fil^d before tlie Tribunal was also not entertaiaed as tlie dispute w^s raised after a long period. In this view of fhe inatter, I do not f^pd it to be a fit case for payraent of DC-78 ^3'5cr;^TPTTWT, y-al^<i<o, f6irti<<iy<< ^Tm^T^^rr^ 3H^9T q^^ (»jcji^6|«£;) ^20 3TI^5Tc??rR^Jcb ^TI31T^§T^m^ Sinha '^s. g;??fTW? ^rf^T 3TT^5T -3' arrears on the post to whicl^ proiiiotion vide order dated ^ the respoudents that as revised ia view of tlie graat c| 9.2.1999, nothing more petitioner has beea granted proforma ^.2.1999. In view ofthe staiid taken by pesjision has already beeu directed to be |f profonna proiiiotion vide order dated for consideration, scuilvies In the result, fhe petitijon is fiaally disposed of. cpi<4irt<nvi ^i^oT^'f^^si ^tci<< ^3Tf^T3Tr^"$T Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Jude