'--<;: ^ ^^SSS 'SBE &£^SEUS Ara(EWES'EBftTI»E:'ERiEB8»i Ir fiAIEi !.B^ifflt::'a&IBE''-£tt.Sllxi"S['%SS'?? No. IBS • PETITIONER .^' l^e&llgBB :; •^?^Lfi!iE e^ssNi BftSSSi f99 SJSBEgi— M W— aig ^£1998 :S.L. NIGAM, son of Shri B.L. Niaam, |! aged • 37 years, Sub BnglneSr', ! yHI Na-tio&al" tltghway, Sub-Divtsion, 1!^ K&j&andgaon, Distt. Rajnattdsaen ;ji] (M.P.};: : •: ! ':::,' .^ffi I" IJ l^! :i i ^ : RESEONDEffl'S 1 5 SBS B S t i!|ll 'ltiil ,h«ll'! •"Ssi^ill VSKS :1. St.ate ^of,:Madfaya:.pradesll.'bI!iro&gh';-t3ie;::;^;|j|^D Seeretaa-y,: •Putilic' Wo»Ks ;I>^Bart,njen|b,^rs||||!^j Oovt. of M.E.,Bhopal (M.Ki) 2. The Engl.neer-in-Chiefi PUtoite! Departnsenf Madhya EradesH, (M.P.) ;• :; 3. The SuBerin'bendlng WSatES :lll@i EnBl.neer',, •:Ii'ida:e« Na^ional Highway, Gl.rcXe •(M.P.) : : • : .?.'' t 4. ,::''The1,; :Sxeoutive : EngijBieeE,,:::|iJ:|jpi|i^ia-isl'i;J[j 1fforks-^Departm6at, : Na!t|^nfilHFI^gl^&y:fi|!|ii :I>tvisloa, :.ISai^r"XM.gp5:',;J'^f|:i!J^.^Y];i':|:.'^^ m ISEI'^.A^IUS '03F A^>^llj:;TiC^.'3CWIoaiSl® ~W1i! .^.. 311^1 qiT ft-il'* 3D^T ?h^i^ ^lfea Tumane -F To? "'<l-Lllc1'il, 'gxitWTC. facll^y tTFRCfT thKlch '^^•{S)f^-Z-bSZIO'S"v^^wr' ^^Vt' SD^I'TOnWHfed SB : Hon'ble Shri Manlndra Nohan ShrivalBtava. J. 09<2-2010 Shri S. K. Thomas, counsel for th|e petitkwier. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer fcrithe State/respondents. WBh the consent of the parties, tfie matter Is heard finally. . This petition has been filed by th^ pelfltoner aggrieved on account of order by which imposiUon of penalty of withho|ding increment with cumulative eflect was passed on 17-08-1997 (Annexure A-9). avajling the statutory remedy of appeal order of impositun of penatty. The respondents have raised pr order of penatty, there is a provision of of granting liberty to approach the grtevance. The State counsel does not disp|rtB the above fact In vjew of above, the petition reserved to the petitioner to approach files statutory appeal within a period ofthecase. qil^C1<4lT1 *1l<-t<rff ^ f^I^t ^^.K ^siPtTiran^r P"he instant petitkin has been filed without Ibefbre fte appellate authority agamst the ^liminaryobjection stating that against the lappeal before the State Govemment and the petitioner has not avaited the oriportunity of filing of appeal belbre the appropriate forum befbre approaching ttje State Administrative Tribuml. Leamed counsel for the pefition^r prays thatthis petttton may be disposed lippellate authority for redressal of his stands tfisposed of. However, liberty is the appdlate authority to avail statutory remedy of appeal against Uie order of irtiposition of penalty. In case, the petitioner of 45 days from today, the concerned appellats authority shall decide the ap||>eal on ils own merits in accorelance with law as expeditiously as possibte. ft is made clear that this Court h^s not expressed any opinion on the merits Sd/- ^ Manindra MohanSnrivastava? Judge ^ <a- iiin ^^?