10 10 Irrt |z 10 \71 l^ 14^1 1-sl 1^1 tli ^ •• 'o \- a- : ^'^ \- % :C-22 W^T^T ^[ch 3T1^T $t)^iict> <-if^a Tumane •^ET ^liqi^q^ ^Tll^^Ko, [®l<r11^^< ^l^dl 9b^l<^ sni^r 'tra^? c:^^-^ c^-^r Q_f\^,.\\/ ^^ rN?"""""--""--^."^"^T/2oo fN^ST' 37T^T'^<rI^H: ^rf^T chi1Lit<n^lri ^i^criT "^ [^^ <f^^i< ^3Tf^R3?T^T SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohart Shrivastava^J. 14-01-2011 Shri K. S. Pawar, counsel for Heard. Learned counsel for the petiti ^he petitioner. loner submitted that this Court allowed the petition directing the respondertt/contemnor to pay regular pay scale from the date of initial appointment. jHowever, vide order dated 04-12-2009 (Annexure C-4), the petitioner has fc^een informed that he is not entitled to two increments. It appears that while pa^sing the order, respondent-Distnct Education Officer has not passed at|iy order with regard to grant of regular |date of initial appointment, as ordered 1.2009. pay scale to the petitioner from the by this Court vide order dated 20-01 Accordingly, it is direoted th^t the respondent authority shall pass necessary orders in compliance of| dated 04-12-2009 does not say anj 1 the order of this Court, as the order \/ thing with regard to grant of regular pay scale from the date of initial app|3intment. With the aforesaid direction, this contempt petition stands disposed off. However, the petitioner would I(?e at liberty to approach this Court, in case, proper orders as directec| by this Court on 20-01-2009 in W.P.(S)No.266 of 2009 are not pas^ed^ the respondent/contemnor Sd/- Manindra Mohan SSirivastava Judge r^^fe^