BEFOfiE THE HOS'BIS H.P.STATE ADMimSTRATI-VE TRXBUHAIi BENCH AT KAIPOR (MP) 1^(5} ^^0}1 Original Applicatipn No., /2000 Shri vijay Kuinar KSWSf? Kbshle, Son of Shri Baldeo Prasad SBSS^CS. Koshle, Tahsildar KaasabeZ, Sub Tabsil, Kansabel. District Jashpur (M.P.) Agpl.i.cant Versas l^/- State of Hadbya Pradesh, f. . ? Through Secretary, ^•e-h-iAa-l A^»v)in'i.s+^"-/'ibM Hinisfcry of -Ro-vonao, ^f,^^^n^ Mantralaya, Vallabb Bbawan, Bbopal (M.P.) 2^ Collector, Kaaker, District Kanker (M.P .) Hon-Applicants APPLICATXOI'T CTiOER SECTION 19 OF THB ADHrNISTfiATI'VE TRZBUNAL &CT 1985. A&sfe; .-:,:';l!s. ,ii:",,a:», "31 '^- ^ /^ .1 l^i^l^£lt;:l jp^^-H(^-22 !:;i!8BS' V 3 311^1^1 h-i\* sn^y ^TRWgl^ -Svi "•^i'iildq, ^TTly'iii. fatfKHy ,^,.....p..^...^...l.^^ ^^T' WW'tT git|l°h 00 SD^I ^giwdfei Shri S.S. Raiuut, counseli Shri Chajidresh Shrivastava s This petitioa has been account of non-pavm.ent of saldrv iaterest (3> 12% per aiuium.. aite Brief facts of flie case Jashpur to Kaaker vide ordeij stayed by the Tribimal up to petiuoner was relieved by the joined his duties at Kanlcer on| dated 31.6.1999 (Amiexure A| coinpliance of fhe said oider,| Jashpuron 1,7,1999 (Aanexur^ 30.6.1999, petitioner claiined r^ was supported by a medical cei also sent by CoUector, Jashpui- However, petitioner was not filuig of representation dated 29 petition. «bi''<td41-) ^M'sS ^ ft<3t <Ri]'h;l< ^; aipgiT SII^T for fhe petitioner. Paiiel Lawver for fhe filed by the petitioner aggrieved for fhe luontli of June 1999 with fhat petitioner was treiiisferred froin dated 17.2.1999. The said order was |30dl May, 1999. On 31at May, 1999, |CoUector, Jashpur and the petitioner 14.6.1999 (Aanexure A-2).Vide order [3], ta-ausfer order was caiiceUed. In petitioner joined back his duties at |A-4). Claiming leave from 15.6.1999 to re^ularization ofthe period as leave. This ittificate. Leave accounts certificate was t;o Conector Kaiiker vide Aanexure A -6. p^id salary for fhat period which led to i|.7.1999 (Amiexuis A-7) Emd fmallv tliis 1 -"i-i "KF1 XI-HC-22 311^1 ^iT fN??3Tl^f sOTwgfta ^-s^ ^l^ld'i), (iyl'y'iii. fa<ni'My 3'ni^r iRra? fli*iwi g»i-n<*> "WI. 200 (<<•(><8T' 3?I^( WITWHfttI •T^ ippropijiati Leamed counsel for Qie was entifled to grant of appropi|i leave account. He subiaits thatl of laedical certtficate produced 1| for payment of salaiy. Subiuission ofleamed can-not be claimed as of right. filed by liie petitioner was not tliat he was ffi as reflected fronil fhe tiiue of his joiniD.g ought t^ substemce, fhe application of[ tlierefoi-e flie saine was not cond petitioner submits that the petitioner iate leave as he had eamed leave in his bv regulanziag fhe period on fhe basis >y the petitioner, petitioner was entitled colunsel )lt Haviag considered fhe parties and taking into con| respondents ia not acceptuig leave, it is directed that thel appUcation iu accordance wifh. The concerued authority shail decide tlie same takiiig iuto accouats certiScate fAniiexure A ^raferah'qn?if'? ^tzl Tf«R5R ^T 3?fSgt( SII^T for fhe respondents is that leave has been ai^ued fhat the apptication ^iroper. If the case of fhe petitioner was |bis niedical certificate, the petitioner at have subiuitted fitaess cei-tificate. In tbe petitioner was not proper aiid (ubinission niade by counsel for fhe i^ideration the reasons assiened bv f|ie petitioner's appUcation for grant of petitioner shali subinit appropriate [rules before the concerued authority. Itake iato consideration fhe same and coiisideration fhe petitioner's leave ^-6). With the aforesaid directi4a, fhe petition is finaUy disposed of. Man">^M^°shrivastava Judge '-rrft'»fKPi ^m Bl KS. m S9 ;i^M I'iUaa