Z7 l^ < c^p$ 7J5VO;> BEFORE THE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH AT JAQALP! ^-3 OF 2001. O.A. N0. j.^tp APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ACT 1985. 1. Smt. S. Sharankar, Wife of Shri B.R. Sharankar, aged about 42 years, Woman Health Worker, Primary Health Centre, Songara, Block Pratap-pur, District Sarguja, M.P. APPLICANT. VER S U S. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Through the Secretary, Ministry of Health Services, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal. The Director, Health Services, Satpuda Bhawan, bhopal, M.P. The Chief Medical and Health Officer, Ambikapur, District Sarguja, M.P. CONTINUED ON PAGE N0. 2, i«-n^—«aw..n,,.@., ^ 4. The Community Health Centre , Pratap-pur, District Sarguja, Through its Community Health Officer. RESPONDENTS, DETAILS OF THE APPLICATION. Ao HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSOARH: MLASPUR Sinate Bench: Hon*bte Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava. J, APPUCANT RESPONDENTS Smt. S. Sharankar Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh and others Presenfc- Shri F. S. Khare, counsel ft>r the petitfoner. Shri Ajay Dwh^edJ, Deputy Govt Advocate ftw the State. ORDER (Passed on <his 26mdayofltarch, 2010) With the consent of teamed counsel for the pa»ttes,<he pettlon is heard finally. (2) F»eti^er has approachcd Jhis Court, aggriwed by onter datod 06-11-2009 (Annexure Ar9), by whfch. the petNioner was required to submtt leave application towards regutari2atK)n of the period of absence from 14-07-1997 to 28-02-1999. (3) Leamed counsel for the peUtioner submNs that aggriewd by an order <rf liansfer dated 1&^)6-1997, a pirtition was fitod before the Tribunal which was finally disposed of vide orderdated OSO&.1997 (Annexure A.2) direcfing the competent authority tp dedde the representation wilhin the stiputated period. It is submjtted Ihat a representatfon was made to (he respondent authoiWes but decision was not taken in time which ted to Wing ol contempt petitkwi (M.A.No.12/1998) whteh was finally disposed of vide onter dated 22-01-2000 (Annexure A-10). Later on, the order of transfer was modified wto another order dated 26-02-1999 dunng the pendency of the contompt petitron and then peHtioner finaHy joined at the new place of posting on 01-03-1999. In these drcumstanoes. pelittoner ctoims that he fe entHted for payment of salary. (4) Leamed counsel for the respondents submte that on petffioner's ctawn for payment of salary, it was informed to the pefitioner vkte bnpugned order datod X- fi.\ 06-11-2009 (Aroiexure A^) that he may submit toaye appUcation tp facUtete payment of sataiy ete. a» per rutos. Leamed ooumsel for the resppndenls submits that onty after submNfing toave application fw reguhyiang the period of absence, appn^riato ctocjswn woykl be taken by the ooncemed aulhorifies. If ulUmately decisfon on tWs appUc^ion wouM result in denial of talary, itwiH giv® rise cause of adion to the petNioner. (5) I hav®considered the rival submisskm mad®l)y leamed counsel for the parties and perused the records. (6) A perusal of Ihe im|Mj®nedoider.dated 06-11-1989 (^nnexure A-0) shows that in response topflljlipner's dajm forpaymentofsalarydunrig the inteiwning period from 14-07-1997 1o 28-02-1999. the petiUoner was asked to submit proper applfcaBon for grant of teav®for regularizmg the period in quesfion as atso for payment of salary. (7) In this view pf the malter, ^1 my opinjon^ np Utogaltty has bem oommitted by the respondenls. It te onfy when whjte regutorizing the perfod of absence, salary or part thereofis denied to the peWoner, he wiN hawe a cause of aclfon. (8) Accordingly, the H-»tantpettfon stamte disposed of wtth an obswvatton that tt will be open for the petilroner tolake^^^^a pureuant to letter dated 06-11-1999 (AnnexuroA^). Ifp^iBonersubmtel^ applicaUon, respondente shaB dedctethfsame ^ricBy in accorelance Wlh rutos applfcabte. If grievance of <he prtitioner stHI remains unpBdressed, it will be open for the petttioner totake recouree to remedy as may beavaitable to him underthe law. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Jude 1!mane