^!tS~ ''S^^':^^^^S5^:'''S^^!SS^''!KW^"v. '^^^.^^^.^/^s^^^ ^^i.^^^•^l-'^^^iE^i^l^^ BEroREa THEflABOTAYPBAflE^-^^IWlS^ATIVE ffi ( Qriginai Application WB^q'^'/iggS ) C^P^ ^^ Shri SaurabhSabu, aged 31 years» son of^Shri K.R.Sahu, Baily Wages Graduate Engiraeer, in the off3.ee of the Execuiive E.ngirieer, Burg Division NO. 1, resident of Kirtl Kunj, Kasar- dih, Burg. - ApDlican-t Versus 'S Jtie.-S'ka-kB of ?'!adhya Pradesb. Through . 1» The Secretaryi Govsrnment of Hadhya Prsdesh, Public Uorks DepaTtreent, Bhapal. 2« The Chief Enginser,( Fast ), Madhya Pradesh, Public Works Beparttnen4;, Raipur. 3. Ths Supesint endi.ng Enginees, M.P.Public Uorks Bepar'tmsnt, Burg CircXe, Durg» 4. The Executive Fngin£-s.r'» M.P.Public Works Ilepartment, S urg Oivision No. 1, "urg. - Respondents APPLICATIOW UNBER SECTind 19, AnMINISTRA TIVE TRIBUNALS ACT, 1985. 3|N HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURB CHHATTISGARH: BILA8PUR Single Bench: Hon'Me Shri Satish K. Agaihotri, J. W. P.S. No. 1219 OF 2005 Petitioner Versus Respondents Saiirabh Sahu. State of Madhya Pradesh Ofhers Shri H.B. Agrawal, Senior Counsel with Shri J.K. Gupta, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Arvirid Dubey, Paael laroyer for fhe State. ORAL ORDER (25t>- July, 2006} 1. The petitioner was appointed as Graduate Engineer on Daily Wages Basis on 1.5.1991. Subsequently, after one inonth's notice, services of the petitioner was discontuiued by orderdated 19.9.1995 (Annexure A-l). 2. The petitioner, being aggrieved filed an appUcation befbre the Madhya Pradesh; Administa-ative Tribimal, Jabalpur. While adiaittmg the appUcation, the Tribunal by order dated 11.10.1995 granted interiin relief ia favour of the petitioner to continue iii service. The said order was confinned thereafter. -3. According to leamed coiuisel for the petitioner, the petitioner has been continuing as Daily Wager, Graduate Eiigtneer. Since then the petitioner is not clauniug any reUef of regularization ia the present petition. Siace the petitioner has been continuiag as Daily Wager froin Jrl A ^ iE iiiii!;i..iiffi: 4. 11.10.1995 tiU date, there is no point in interfering with fhe iateriia order graated in favour of the petitioner. In view ofthe interun order, which has been confinned later on, fhis petition staads disposed of. No order as to costs. Sanjay K. Agrawal Judge 0-<*1 •!1T- SE k.lKi.liSKtll.i.i^