'w N c^ /" bTfW^^f^. ©EFORE THE STATE ABMINISTRATIVE TRIiUNAL BENCH AT RAIPVR. (M.P.) Applicant, Cherku Ram Karaniy S/o Andham Ram Koramy Supdlt, Land Records (Now functionin@ fisstt^ Settlement Offi cer- Kyrud), M. Po Versus<» .1 L. Respond@nts» 1) Sta-fce of M,P, Through- Revenue Secretary^ ©hopalo 2) Commissioner^ Land Records anci Settlement ©fM»P< Qwalior, (M<P«) 3) Th@ Secretary^ ©eneral Administxation of M»F| at Bhopal, (M.P.). DETAILS GF APPLICATION ^cET^TRnWT, tPTTl<-t''l<?, RrtKiyx . ^,{).c^)^'^cr^&5~ *fl l<l^l ^TT^ ••••••• •-• •'•••••••••••••• •!••"•••••• 3n^^T^T{^Trei ^ansii^srgRra? 3TT^$T q^q»(4c|ijc|«£;) g^iTsn^rf^rsn^^T SB: Hon'bte Shri Manindra Moli 15^)2-2010 Shri Goutam Kiaduri, coun| Shri Bhaskar Payashi, Pan^l Heard. an Shrivastava. J. -19&8 Instant petition involvesa s^ The petitioner's grievance| Tribunal on 26-08-1997 (Anrexur^ an order was issued on 26-03-19P8 considered in the light of observatjon Learned counsel for the pep bound to extend the benefrt of eail as thesame attained finaljty. Learned State counsel is t|ir even though time was granted ear|ii Notices were issued on 11-0 Upon perusal ofthe order is clear that the respondents petitioner for promotion as on 11 does not reflect the conskJeratjon the Tribunal. In this view ofthe matter, 1 Accordingly, the petition respondent No.l-State of Revenue, Raipur to take decision decided, in the light of the ord{ (Annexure A-6) in T.A.No.4050/£|8. cbl^Ic^41v1 ^l*1rtT^?fcld xRi^cix ^3lf^T3TT^5T el for the petitioner. Lawyer for the State/respondents. lort question for consideration. is that in spite of direction issued by the A-6), though his case was conskJered and but it does not reflect that his case was made by the Tribunal. :jtioner submits that respondents were duty lier order passed in favour of the petitioner inable to make any definite statement, as ier, but retum has not been fited so far. ?3-1999. 26-08-1997 passed by the Tribunal, it obligation to consfcter the case ofthe D4-1987. However. document Annexure A- of the petitioner as per the directton of dated werelunder 24-04-1987. ^m not inclined to keepthfe matter pending. ^tands disposwl of with a direction to Chhattjisgarh through Secretary, Department of |in the case of the i^titioner, if not already J^r passed by the Tribunal on 26-08-97 The petitioner shall be at liberty to C-78 ^3:5Er;:?TPTT^T, tP-al^l<l(?, Rrtwyx _,_ ^.l^;^'2-^5'J&^~ wisyr^m^ 3H^$T traq? ((jc|i^6|«£S) ^^TWR^Jcb cTaTT3TI^^T3Rfcp |»w: Tumane q)|<<Icl)<nT1 ^ll+lwT^'i^^l xRl^CI^ ^S 3lRl+1 3I1^5T approach the respondent No.1 a|ong with a copy of the order within three weeks from today. Respondent ltJo.1 shall take decision within a period of three months from the date of retceipt of representation, if any, or frOTn the date of receipt ofa copy ofthe or<| be communicated the decision taHen in his case. ler, whichever is earlier. The petftioner shall Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Jude