^{iCO ^<^1°^ BEFORE 1BE HON'BEE MoP.STATE SSWISISSSSSSVB TRIBUN&I, BENCH AT~RAI?gR (M.P*) Original ApplAeatioa Hp. ^lj5o<3.._/1999 o^ ^Y~~~''&- / ': U •ij^ •;:^' '^ •^'^ QulaBi Abmad Ajmeri Son of Shri Abbas &jneri Disfcciet Aaditor, Paachaya-fc and Saraaj Sewa, Raipur (M.P.) res-ldeat of Raj'a-Talab, Raipar, Town Tabsil aad District Raipur (M.P.) •VERSUS -; State ef M.Po Through Secret.ary, Paacbayafe aad Saaaj Sewa, Hantralaya Vallabh Bhawan, Bfaopal. ;• CommissiORer, Panchaya't aad SanaJ Sewa, M.P. Btiopal r< Joiat Direcfcor. Paachayafc aad SamajSewa, Raipur (M.P.) Beputy Direetor Panchayat and Samaj Sewa, Ra-Lpar (M.P.) .. APPI.ieAiSlT ... NOH-APPLICAMrS ,.^- I-:)1-' APPUCATION UHDER SEGTXOH 19 OF THE ADmNTSTRATIVE tRIBUNAL ACT 1985. 1. PARTICUIAR OF THE APPUCAHTs As above ia cause t.i'tle. ...2 M'1 aii^STg'iR'li* n2IT3nt?I**ii* ® \JTO| "iiwiriil, y-alwifi, Rrtiti3'< u^.'vv'^^L?.<r STT^ST qa^ (ijclijdcEi) SRliSR^rftaan^?! tb|i|fd41'< *<l*fnT4" fe"<l xluitcit ^SI^TSn^ST in Shrivastava. >1. SB: Hon'bte Shri Manlndra M< 16-02-2010 Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, [sounsel for the petitioner. Shri Bhaskar Payashi, Par With the consent of learn lel Lawyer for the State/respondents. 3d counset for the parties, the petition is heard finally. The petitioner substantive|y appointed to the post of Panchayat and Samaj Shikshak Sangathak in fie department of F'anchayat and Social Welfare, was sent on deputatior) to Rural Development Offtee during the period from 1982 to 1990. Persc(ns junior to the petitioner were promoted vide order dated 25-01-1989 lea^ing the petitioner. Petitioner was later on informed that his case could no< retevant ACRs. Against ordt Development Cffioers to their pe be considered for promotion for want of re of reversjon/repatriation of Blook rent department, petition was filed before the M.P. State Administrative 'Hribunal, Jabalpur, which was dismissed. Against the said order of cfismissal, Block Development OfFicere Assooiation approached the Supf'eme Court. VkJe order dated 14-02-1995 (Annexure A-3), the appeal fll^d by the Block Deveiopment Cfficers Association was finally disposed ^f. It was observed as under:- - "Be that as it may, the appell^ints cannot be put to any prejudice so lar as their service cai^er in the parent Department is concemed. In whatever caj>acity they were working in their parent Department, they woijld be deem to be continuing in that capacity while on deputatioiti as BDOs in the Panchayat and Rural Development Departnn|ent. The appellants are entitled to all those benefts in their par^nt Department whfch are given to the persons juniorto them orfthose who are similarly situated. In case any of the persons ju|iior to the appellants have been promoted to the higher ca<|lres during the period when the T :",.,....!.(*..). .,SB!BW ^jiSSt. ,<>»• ";„ ^^y-78 <:'.^M9S" sn^?i??iR-ii* aWSII^STfblicl) ^ ^sEr^wEnwT, i»-(Tl<d'li<»,fiwi<My< ..\^:?;..(^.^.2.?.?.?J.&.?. 3H^9S qa^ (I3?rfg6R?) g:RiTW?lfS?r3Ili?T -'L-- appellants were on deputafi shall consider the appellar^ts dates when the persons junji the appellants are found consideration, they will b^ benefits." Case of the petitioner is along with a copy ofthe order not considered in the light ofthe| It has been stated in thel District Audftor vide order datetl assuming the charge. In the r^t petitioner's case for promotton of non-availabiljty of his ACRs. Taking into consideratic|n considered for promotion on orders of promotion were earljer) Couri: had clearly directed that in his parent Department which ^ directed that in case any of the i promoted to the higher cadres deputation, he would be entitte<jl relevant dates when case, the petitioner is found he will be entitled to all the also directed to pass necessary) the petitioner in compliance of t^iat though he submitted his representatton p^ssed by the Supreme Court, his case was |order passed by the Supreme Court. |retum that the petitioner was promoted as 28-07-1997 with effect from the date of r^turn, it has been clearly stated that the (tould not be considered earlier on account <t>l<lid41'< llldf^ffs'd <(Iuitci'< ^ari^Tsn^ST tion, the State of Madhya Pradesh for promotkin from the relevant or to them were considered. In case suitable for promotion after such entitled to all the consequential the fact that the petittoner was not acif;ount of non-availability of his ACRs when lissued on 25-01-1989 and as the Supreme t|ie petitioner is entitled to atl those benefits ijvere given to the persons junior to him, it is Ipersons junior to the petitioner have been djjring the period when the petitioner was on fbr consideration for promotion from the pereons junfor to the petitfoner were considered and in suiybte for promotion after such consideration, corjsequential beneflts. The respondents are orders granting consequential benefits to order dated 14-02-1995 passed by the the L R?^- %iAc-78 gii^argii R'ii<b a31T31I^?Td>*iict) Tumane ^ ^oET'^l^lri^, t»T:nwi<»,RoKiy »-^...^;.f:.^l'"?;..s:?^k'T, 3I1^?Tf (ijcil^q^i) Supreme Court (Annexure A-3) date of receipt of a copy of this With the aforesaid directio oitder. tpi<ifn<]Tli ii*inTffls>cl xIuit^K ^iSll^TgiI^T ^within a period of three months from the \\, the petition stands disposed of. Manind.aMohanShrivastava Judge fc--.