BEFORS THE HON'BLE HIGH COORT OF JQDICATURE AT BILA3PUR, CHHATTIS3ARH W.P.No. gfoj' . Of 2001 PETITIONSR 'GANESH PRASAD DEWAN3AN,'. aged 43 yeaBs, son of Shri Rana Pyare Dewangan, Sub- Auditor, Office of the Deputy Director, Pancbyat Awam Samaj Sewa, JftGDALPHR, Distt .Bastar . V ER SD S RESPONDEKTS l^ ^ 1 ^--1'^' ..-•"^' ^y€-'' ..-•'<^<^ ^e' . •<,>' ^' s?i'- '..'"' ^. ^' '^^ ^ 1. STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUHAL OF MADHYA PRADSSH RAIPUR. Tbrough: The Registrar, .State Administrative Tribunal Raipur Cbhattisgarh. 2. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, Througbs The Secretary,. Panchyat Awam Samaj Sewa Department, Raipur C.G. 3. COLLECTOR (BASTER) Jagdalpur Distt. Bastar (C.G.5. 4. CHIEF EXECUTrVE OFFICER, Zila Panchayat Baster C.G. 5. DEFUTY DIRECTOR (Panchayat) Jagdalpur, Distt. Baster C.G. WRIT PSTITION UKDER ARTICL3 226 OF CONSfTITUTION OF INDIA ^WNUBSNBIi'^EBSi® sn^r^ir Ki-fi.4i 3V^S ^*!!-^^f^ ^^^•^itiNB. ^'H^3'"""""' D.B: Hon'blc SluiJusticcP.C.Naik & Hon'bk Shri Justice Fakhruddin, 21.01.2003 Sint. Reiiu Kochar, coi.insel f<^r the petitioner. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Dy. "^RF^rqN ~^:^ ^ ^^ i^^.^ ^ sil^rii gii^i JJ, G. for fhe State. Tbough fhis inatter is listed iA m.otion hearing, but with |the consent of fhe parties it is|being finaUy heard aad i |disposed of. j This petition is directed dgaiust the order dated 117.11.2000 whereby O.A.No. 1144/2000 filed by fhe petitioner i'as disniissed by fhe State Adxni^iistrative Tribunal at the adinission stage. Before theTribunal, the peti1p?acr had challcngcd thc |order Aiuiexure P/16, dated 1)9.07.2000 whereby the trespondents had directed the aprilicant fhat it will not be ^ossible for thein to pay his salaiy if directions contauied ia gthe order dated 19.07.2000 (Axinex^tre P/16 are not coinpUed Iwifh. Adinittedly, the petitioner Irepresentation/appeal to fhe Gov^nuuent as conteniplated |under Section 20 of the Adininistt|ative Tribunal Act, 1985. ^ccordiagly, it was held by the Tijibunal fhat the O.A. was ^ireinature and accordiagly it was (^isinisscd on that groiuid had not inade any jnith a reiaark fbiat "the appUcant i^ ^etition after coinplying with th.e empowered to file a fresh provisions as contauied ler Section 20 of fhe Adiniaistrative Tnbunal Act." [qN?i?Rg?I ^\.: Xi-HC-22 3t]t?T^RI •i?TFfT3:lltn ^RT^"?IT^ .aiBl^ ^IPTRTO, i<Tll^jld, TsRirey •ewnw^RfeT '•R'fe'fr'T •»^"S'? tsW Trap '^ siftaR arc^i order which, we feel, does not| -ttaviiig-faeaid leai'ued uujansri-for~tbF-pEtttlcmEr~aitd~Qfe- State Couiisel, we are of fhe |opinion that there is no error coiniuitted by ffae Tribuiial so ^s to wag-aat iuterference in fhe prejudice the petitioner ia any way. Accordiagly, the Coiul ^s not iacliiied to entertain the petition which staads dispose4 of at the adinission stage wifh a direction to the respondentsjfhat in case the petitioner GSes 1 a i^pi-esentation/appeal to| the appropriate/competent {. Authorily raisiug objection to 1Jhe said Order dated 19.7.2000 (Aiuiexure P/16 befor^ tbe Tribuiial), his representation/appeal shaU jbe considered by the said Authority within a' perio4 of 60 days fi-om the receipt/coimnuiucation of ttu^ order. It is inade clear fhat ttiis Court is not expressiug ajjiy opinion on the inerits of the case of the petitioner aud ^ the petitioner files sucli representation/appeal, the Sfjme shaU be considered aad disposed ofon its own merits 4&d ia accordauce wifh law. With the above directions aad observations, the petition stands disposed of. Sdf- P.C. Naik Judge Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge