^f % ^ 1M - 2 - IN THE STATE ADMINISTBATIVE TRIBL3NAL AT JABALPUR :3<0!7 O.A. N0. OF 1993 ^, Ravindra Kumar Sarkar - Versus - State of M.P. & others 9 • • APPLICANT. RESPONDENTS. APPLICATION IJNDER SECTION 19 OF THE ADMINISTRATlVc,__JRIBUNM^S .-.J..J 1. ACT. 1985 Pariiculars of^the Ap.plicant : 2. Ravindra KUH)^T Sarka^/S/o Late Shri H»C»Sarkar? aged about/35 yeams^ R/o M^I^G^-11, Hoy^ing Board Colony^ Katni^ ^C presenj^ working as Block Q^velopmq^t Officer at Badwar, Jabalpur, P^j:ticjyaa^_^ot,,,;^he^,.|ws£G^ t 1- State of Madhya Pradesh^ Through its Secretary, Ministry of Revenue Departmenty BffiPAL. -\. 2- The Commissioner, ? Jabalpur Division, JABALPUR ( ). GrfS^ IN Tl .*. -^( Ravind] State € APPLIC^ —.^J1. 2. ^.'^ii^ • '<?wvfi^B^-^^^ ^••ii-^s 'v^^l^^ . • ""' also cha hereby m 4. ^ T the orde within ti ^ent ^3 ^ ^ .ttt&?*'tS%-pra<'«h ^nch^;a^e^et^1 . ^^ ^c^t ^, ^ Shishir Sarkar, :a^ad aoo&t 16 ys^xss S/o lat8 ^,K. Sarkar, age'c!" a&'out 39 y©iars» S/c Saraiigsrh Di.stf. R&ipur, ViRss Khan^ ••Sayang.-a^h^ . . (ii) Ku* Oipali .Sarkar, a.gsd ^bou-fc 11 y'-eare, ,S/o lat®.S,K, SarRar, ased aDQyt 39 ysars. R/o Sar^nQayh Dls-S'&« Raipyr Vi.kaskhand .Sarangarh, (iU).^ii;hun Ssrkar aged'aboufc 39'years S/o late R,K» Sa.rkar, egsd about 39 ysars- 1 ' ; ^/o S&ranaarh Dtstt, R^ipur yiKasRhaod ' : .$aranQarh» ^*y) 'tBt* Raj-fi^gckgr, agad sboiitt 39.y©ars, O/o. iafce'R»K* Sarkar, a&?d-'aboo-f3:9 ysacs R/Q Sarangath ©istt..gsipur VJL^askhand SaEan'gax'h. r^ Thakur HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. No. 856 of 2005 Petitioner Ravindra Kumar Sarkar (dead) fhrough L.R.s Shishir Sarkar & ofhers Versus Respondents State of Madhya Pradesh (now CJihattisgarJi) and atbcrs 8B: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnlhotri, J Shri R. S. Patel, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Miss Sunita Jaia, Panel Lawyer for fhe respondente. ORDER (Passed on this 20tfa day of Pebniary, 2007) 1. The petitioner (Shri Ravmdra Kumar Sarkai^ was posted as Block Development OflScer at Badwara, Katni. He had fited fhis petition chaUei^ging fhe order dated 20.7.1992 (Annejcurc A/1), whereby charge sheet was served on him for certaia aBegations aad the oider dated 10.6.1992 (Aiuiexurc A/2), whcaeuDder pursuant to the suspension order dated 8.6.1992, fhe cbarge of fhe post ofBlock Developmeat OflBcer, Badwara was withdrawn from fhe petttioner. 2. Since durmg fhe t^ndency of fhe petition, fhe petitioner had died, vide order dated 29.4.20(K) legal heirs of fhe petitioner were permittwl to be brought on rccord. 3. Leamed counsel for fhe petitioner, on instructions, submits fhat siace the enquiry has already been compteted, tfae instant petitk>n has become mfhictuous. However, the petitioner seeks liberty of this Court to fite appropriate appUcation, if so advised, for ^rant of consequential benefits as fhe petitioner had already died. 4. It is ordercd accordmgly. 5. The ^tition is dismissed wifh fhe aforcstated liberty. No order as to costs. — Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge