•£-&-^ I ll^te PJnJb k Ja^i; (>hP> : h>bb] l<t. Ilnktbilfalbte (z) llfi£te ^jajb I(J^ [>hP h'>bb] Jcfc jlnfctbbyiP ( | ) :: jn>fcyi<fc JA - l-byip :: •itbyiiib 'byoiftK b-nr> lisy izait 61 Mhl^Pto Mt >-*>^lls> ('lt'S.) (^l* 'h.t&ltebjlSk I'yhyi^i •ftlli; 'frifej^e) (-•it'a) >RM> •>llalbU'>^ 'tt^lih tbytb?(tMh 1»SJI+ . , (•if&) >Rw> 't-bk •fih'^^ 'buikit/itihiy u*iy y,^-*p 'bbjft : JMS 'l-Mli; °>l>M|U»--fl^ : klflbbbll.lo £dfe) (•it'e.) •>?MI->I»] (^yfe 'h.»i>3b|isk i>yhyib>s •fius '(itittfe) i^fey^tt) 1'i^ib- -9 J ^e^ t«?3-_K-a.'k>=5 ^k^lto ^fc Zl7 file 'ihfe Mlt£JlB (Z) ^ct, 'h.i^ifebjiak i>yby^ -fius Itite^) l^yy 'tbiiiby iu>iii;k<fc 'lfay •^l'ifih(^ -b-> blt-illp ^fe It' &IS 'lKlt) kllbb-ift (l) sitc »n^i»ss 'yWfl'.l 'WiW afsas '^'^» ''MfWfleai-M-j ^sS^SSSr^^ "^""Ty^'i ••^Kww^ QTT'sT^"'0" lnk<bi>bll!> ~^M.^^ C^l^n XWK-i WSSL •il'<!e >?br> 'fty Inh h>t(>h)l!> ibyftlliSK h»r> l?(^MIt ftltft € • ^ : an^l^t ^misnt^i ^RW ^ Ttimane TST '*||<IM'LI, ®-!ily<i<o,[siciK-iy VJ ,,P.^,; f^-T.fc^-^^-Z^OS" TOiWBtet3!i^r •mqferaN-WRff-9fe^t Tfe?R ^siRnsii^i SB: Hon'Me Shri Manindra Mohan Shi 07.Q4-201Q rastava.J. Shri S. K. Thomas, counsel forthe|petitionere. Shri Ajay Dwh/edi, Deputy Govt. Aijlvocate for the State/respondents. Heard. The petitionere, who were initialt regulareed in servtee and dispute arose\ / appointed on adhoc basis, later on, vith regard to their entittement )br grant of increment in respect of the period of ad|ioc service. Matter was teken up befbre the State Administrative Tribunal and ttie were entitled for the pay of break period Tribunal passed order hotding that they and alsofor.annual increment On this finding, recovery was also quashed. Grievance of the petitionere as \|entilat6d in the petiSon is that though increments have been granted and amc|unt recovered have been refunded to them, pay in respect ofthe break period h^s not been paid. On the other hand, leamed coi^nset for the respondents referrhg to averments made in the return submits tha the petitioner under the Rule, has been stated that recovery has been withdraujn and increments have already been sanctioned, no specific averment with re^ break pertod has been made. It has be^ twhatever amount due and payable to paid. Though, it has been specifteally 'ard to payment of salary in respect of 'n generally stated that pay has been sanctioned and pakf also. Respondent No.2 shall ensure tl|iat petitionere are entitled for pay in respect of the break period as per the ord^- of ttie Tribunal passed in favour of the petitionere on 21-06-1999 in O.A.No.96/1^99 and 20-05-1999 in O.A.No.97/1999. If the same has not been paid, the same s|halt be paid within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Wift the aforesafcl direction, the peftion stand disposed of. Sd/- Manmdra^hanshrivastava Judge ^ !(i,3€h('hiN^nir3T,iF.r.r;pTfi..-i" ' p-noio- 1,00,000. o