,1 ^c, |3^/ot. /-) BE.E'ORE THE i'aDHYA PRADESH STATE M)£IIHISTPATrVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR 0«& APPLIC^INTTS .I?<<11-07^ /1996 !<» Kailash Markandey S/o Shri Late Bharat Markandey, R/o Village BankBt Block Kodagaon» Jagdalpur, Distt: Bastar, M»P< 2e Shri Derh Sori, S/o Shri Rupdhar Mur±ya» R/o ^llage Mulmula, B.Do Kodagaon, Jagdalpur, District Bastar<i 3* Shambhulal S/o BIiaratram Satnaxni^ R/o Kodagaon^ Jagdalpur» . Districts Bastar^ (M.P^)* 4.* Dhani Rai^ S/o Suldade.v Muriya,.' R/o Maiaooat Block». Kodagaon^. Jagdalpur, ©istt$ Bastar, M<P^. 5. Bond S/o Bharatram Satnami, R/o Giroba Block Kodagaon^ Jagdalpur^ Dlstt^ Bastar^ M»P» 6. Shakrurara, S/o Doulat Bhutra, R/o. Golaband Block Jagdalpur, Dlstrlct Bastar^ M^P^ ?• Kartj.kram S/o Sukhram Gond R/o Village Karnja Block Kodagaon, Jagdalpur, District Bastar» M.P. 8. Devendra S/o Mangalram Katlya. R/o Barebendery Bloek Kod^gaon,. Jagdalpur, Distrlct-Bastar, M.P» .f^^ 7) 2- - y E &i s u s MON-APPLICJ^jyS ^^•^...^ 1 * The Com^lssipner^ of ^ ^A ^^^•c^yw^^^A Departmenfc MoP* 'Bl'xopal* j ^ ^ c ^ -^' ^^•y^ 2^ Divislonal Deputy CoHTOisslonc' Bastar Jladim .Jati and Xnusucl'xlt Jatl Kshetriya ¥lkas Pradhikaran, Jagdalpur,:! Distrlct-Bastar, M»P» 3» Block Development Education Officer, Block Kodagaon, Jagdalpuri .Dlstrict-Bastar, M.P. (' s^tte^^r °>^T^ t^e^e^ ^^^w^~^A^&*w^<^J • t&tArift ^e<S^^T^i^1 Is'! ^XPPLZCATION TOJDER SECTJON 19 OP TI1E STATE APMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAI* J»CT, 1985» HiGH COURT OF CHHAT71SGARH : BiLASPUR .PETmONERS RESPQNDENTS WRIT PETSTION (S) N0.1365 OF 2005 • •• Kailash yarkandey & Others Versus The Corrsmissioner of Tribal .Development: Departme.nt & Others ^ Singie Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawy'er fbr the State, ORDERfORALl . (Passed on this 9th day of Fsbruary, 2011) Heard tearned counsel forthe parties. 1. 2. 6. By this petltion, the petitioners seek: a direction to the respondent authorities not'to terminate the semces of.the petitioners further to reguEarize the services of the petltloners with payment of arrears. jt is informed that the petitioners have aiready been terminated by order dated 14/02/1996 (Annexure R/2) prior to fiSing of this petition on 06/09/1996. Et appears that the' petitioners have fiied^ this petition suppresslng the facts of terminatson from service. On the basis of statement that they were not terminated an interim 'rellef to the effect the petitioners niay be ailowed to continue was granted^ Thus, jt.is clear case of misieading the Coyrt and obtainJng order by suppressing material facts. "Learned counsel submlts thatthe-petitioners are not informed about the termination order, though they were away from the job and stated the fact that the petitioners.have interim reiief. Thus, the writ petitlon is dismissed firsffy on the ground of suppression of materiai facts and seco^c^ythe petitioners have aiready been. ternnlnated from the service way back in the year 1996 which was not brought into notice to this Court and is not under chailenge. in the resuEt, the writ petitlon is dismlssed vAh' cost quantEfied to be at Rs.3000/-. Sai Sd/- . . , tishK.AS"ihotrl Judge Arun