ln?-t>bj lcb J£tli££^ije H-r?yiytp in?-ct3igjtpci3iflj ii(!;n 61. ?jpU}p fh lflft>^14P xy •fi-lt llaS> IIOK\) 'Moto cb|lgie 'cbjjaj^oyjm t?(cpl.>IK 'plO.in •fr '&'tt: RUlfayiSH'lp?jr?to|[pS f?|cb [l?!'pio.iri •e frnn uih| UIC\JH'|j?[Jl 'la0 . RUIU>WI& i|t?iaj (cb[jscbp '; •ri'wuih|te 'JfiUe^ ^UIKH' toln|j-?y iSbjlc'ilsla b&j^rxs-ft -ia& teRUS B.^BtZStt •3 •I. 'E'tt'. RUIBglSH' lB?JB>t»J(jnS r?(cb llg 'cbK>l8l.>y>[tflcbu U»\R- '[^.'^^ E^^ue ^ifc ee £ue'LU>L>'? MH'iSs-ob^ 6661. Inle(t>S>^]Uie ^^ ~JoU^Qy(^()£r:3 ?-"Fir?i? 'l6^fil231f Mfc^jyie ct3i^jh?iiftn r^if- r?jjo[oip jgita an^sTWKM ciatrsii^OTWito ^SvS! "iii^tlri^l, yal'«<i<B,R«i<ay< ..U.f..Q.)..2..cl.l^.^... sn^?r <ra^ (yifgq.s) W(.20 B^araR^ifScisiiSsT SB: Hon'ble S^hrLManindj-a Mohaa Shrwastava, J. 24.01.2010 Shri Rakesh Anthont Shri Arviad Dubey, The iustant uetitionl parity iu the inatter of Sranted to his couaterpa clauned fhat he is entitle same niamier as was CoUeges vide oi-der ofAnn^ Leamed coiinsel for order was passed by the fhe Instructors who are p: Pradesh had approached their cases aa order consideration of cases, ia Tribunal in T.A. No. 2651 Supreme Court aad the H< special leave petition. Ihas been filed bv fhe uetitioner cls ir^nt of appropriate pay-scale as has been IFts ia Polytechnic CoUeges. Petitioner's [1 for grant of revised pay- scale ia the grafated to other Instructors of Polytechnic ^xiu-e A-6, Dated 24.3.1998. Under fhese circujn! the case, in luy opinion, ei direction to respondents fo cbl^lfd41'1 HltldT^ffa'cl '((uitsix ^3|K)*13II^9T T, counsel for the oetitioner. 'aael Lawyer for fhe State/respondents. fhe petitioner submits that earlier, aa 1'ribunal in T.A. No.2651/1988. Some of ;senUy workiug m. the State of Madhya fjie High Court of Madhya Pradesh aiid ia las been passed on 11.5.2007 for |dew of fact that the order passed by the 1988, S.L.P. was preferred before the ju'ble Supreme Court dismissed fhe said ^tances, without entemig iato raerits of ^ds ofjustice would be served in. issuiag i~ consideriag fhe case of the petitioner. -SC-78 dTCj "tjiqirt^, wal'M^Ko, (qrtltiyt *tl*l»l^V^S 3II^?Tg>TRi'<i* WIT3II^STrii*li* -/'•" Y. tiiriba- 3TI$9T qa^ (l^tjd^i) ^. 20 Accordingly, it is d[ the case of fhe petitioner benefix?-of .the judgm.ent| 21.8.1990. Respondents petitioner withia a reason^l froia the date of receipt d place before fhe respondei in T.A. No.2651/88 with a(l of fhe respondents to enab) Wifh the above direc It is niade clear ft opinioa on the inerits of petitioner is stiU agRrieved to reinedy available to him <t>l^fri<i1*) 11*friTffIs><3 xluttci'! ^ai^qan^sr rected fhat respondents shall coasider as to whether he is entitled to be given passed ia-T.A. No.2651/1988 dated ihall take decision ta the case of the ble trme, wifh an outer limit of4 inonths coy of fhis order. Petitioner shali also it cbpy ofoider dated 21.8.1990 passed relevaat docuinents for the satisfaction le thein to take decisions ia the inatter. |ions, fhe iastant petition is disposed of. lat fhis Court has not exDressed aay the case. Needless to emohasise, if the it wfll be open for hirn to take recoiu-se lunder the law. Sd/- ManiindraMohanShrivastava Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge