^•-^•;: ^"' IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.C.C-No. Applicant 'etitioner ^- . -';^-' ^ <v .:-1»" ^ ..K">s..-'' .-ir>'' ro o^ .-•^:''' ^' >' .-\° ^ ' ..''/ . :^'^ ^-^' '^^•" ^ lent L ^' <r ^b' /2010 iinglB Ben^ Gajanand Patel, aged about 45 years, S/o Makhan Lal Patel, R/o Thakur Chedilal Barrister Krishi Mahavidyalaya Evam Anusandhan Kendra, Sarkanda, Bilaspur ' Versus Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya Raipur, through its Registrar Senior Scientist/ Dean, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Regional Agricultural Research Station, Sarkanda, Bilaspur APPLICATION FOR MODIFICATION/CLARIFICATION OF ORDER DATED 08/01/10 ^ ^\° HIGHCOURTOFCHHATnSGARHATBib^SPUR \ IVi.C.C. No. 465 OF 2010 APPUCANT : Gajanand Patei VERSUS RESPONDENTS : indlra Gandhi Krishi Vishwa Vidyaiaya, Ralpur, and another. APPUCATiON FOR iVIODIFJCATSON / CLARIFICATJON OF ORDER DATED 08/01/2010 SB: Hon'bJeShrLSatLsh K. Aanihotri, J. Present: Ravindra Agrawal, Advocate for the applicant/ petitioner. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on 10th day of September, 2010) 1. in the instant application, the petitioner seeks the modifjcation to the order dated 8.1.2010 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 101/1993 (Gajanand Patel v. Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya and another). 2. Learned counsei appearing for the petitioner submits that this Court dlrected that the petitloner would be entitied to consequential benefits. Thereafter, the petitioner file representation on 10.3.2010, for grant of consequentiat reliefs. Without complying the order of this Court, the State respondents are promoting juniors to the petitioner to the post of Section Officer/ Assistant AccountanV Superintendent/ Administrative Assistant Account Superintendent in the pay scaSe of Rs. 6500-200-10500/-. Thus, a direction may be Issued modifying the order dated 8.1.2010 to grant consequential benefits within a stipulated tjme. 3. S have heard iearned counset for the petitioner and perused the order dated 8.1.2010. Once the order to the effect that the petitioner ^;.^ y ^ 4. wouid be entitled to consequential benefits has been passed, it is not necessary to fix any stipulated time, as the respondents have to compiy with the order within reasonabje tlme, even if no time timit has been fixed. Thus, the petition for fixing the stlpulated time is dismissed, however, Siberty is reserved to the petitloner to take appropriate steps under the provisions of law to ensure compliance of the order, if so advised. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Ashok