mum”“3“?dad EEixa w§$§$$t§ € EM 6 FE ‘ 24%. gun? \NQE “WEww£5". aim m¢ 3m§ E. «wgag “3+. @E aEqam m3§ Ema” 3m. § $3 1 ~4§¢§E mgrm omJmm g §§ ma§a§a. w an 43%u; Mg 3 E gmq $4 ww wam @EH I «Ema wan; awq E - §m~4mg“; .www mean ammgu. mg? was.gum gmq. .«Em‘m ME}; § mmmigm aEgq? wEa nEEm Nqamig? §§¢§R; Mm.x. w mw 3 A m § §E§i 4w§ “: wa gaa m? 3. ; w a§ wrwwm. gg -mu ‘Kt. 3% gmmad? n24 3 EH mgd§ EQWQ ag. 1 F‘Ql 3a W, Wm, faa’mgl W m . WOJE'HZEQJM ma mmmafgav ~ WWW ‘@ 3€Wa¥é¥r W SB: Hon’ble Shri Manindra Moh an Shrivastava, J. 19.04.2010 Shri S.K. Thomos, counse for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedy, Dy. GcTvt. Advocate for the State/respondents No. 1 to 4. Heard. Petitioner’s grievance is that initially, vide order dated 29.6.1998, petitioner services were repatriated to his parent department, which was subjected to chalienge by filing an Original Application before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 8.3.2000 (Anrexure A-10) passed in O.A. No.980/99, the Tribunal quashed the order of r patriation. During the period of pendency of disputes between the Govern ent and the petitioner, it appears that the V. petitioner remained absent fro duty for long period and after the order of Tribunal, petitioner was allowed o join at the new place of posting. Petitioner, however, was not paid salary fo the intervening period i.e. from 17.9.1998 to 25.3.1999 treating this period a unauthorized absence. Later on, petitioner submitted an application for gra of leave to regularize the period of absence. As his applicationre’mained u decided nor was he granted salary for the intervening period, this petition w s filed. ln the return, it has b en stated by the respondents that upon submission of application by th petitioner, the matter has remained pending consideration at different levels. It has been specifically averred in the return that though the case of the petitioner was fonNarded to the office of [111% '%fn'§t Commissioner vide memo datec 30““ November, 2000; the case of the petitioner has remained pending a 1d another memo was sent on 9.7.2002. It is stated that the petitioner’s claim would be decided. Taking into consideration the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and that petitioner has already submitted his application for grant of leave, it is directed that the respondent No.2 shall take final decision in the case of the petitiorer relating to his claim for grant of leave as per his leave applications dated 8.3.1999 (Annexure A—9) & 25.9.2000 (Annexure A-14). The same shall 3e decided within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Learnedcounsel for the petitioner further submits that during the pendency of the petition though etitioner has been fixed in various revised pay—scales, benefit of 6‘“ Pay-Sca has not been extended to him on account of non—receipt of service book om the office of Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Nagari, Disrict-Dhamtari. It woUld be open for the respondents to consider this' gri vance of the petitioner. ln the event his grievance is not redressed, it will be open for the petitioner to approach this Praveen Court. With the aforesaid observat ons, petition is finally disposed of. S l- Shrlvastava ‘Mamndra Mohan judge L [W‘afaii