V No... gOgi‘gaj . 'Fi'led todaywg.5$;.wmf i §by Shrim . a For R gistrar, M. P. Stale ; c'm. Tribunal. ' w ‘. Lu 7/ (7/3») I?» 5’9 3703/ 3f3r- E WW @>20m ¥ “aw mqa‘hr WW: ‘” € III wig? Egr.:<,°r. mm, mgr e2 a§ mam 2&1 rwa %?I Wm WWW WWW , $‘Ftrt7wa Wm, arm. E‘Tfrfmfiw mé‘TfaixTw, wag? — wag? 313m. g 3m§aww 313 um m mm, 'eUET : aw RafH-a, W61 ‘Ftmwa Era" Wm m7? W W, Ema; 36H, 3%q‘ra gm. 5r. g 32S Wmg 1mm, @fWT : yaw WEE, W ’i‘wkm Era‘r wm mm %i‘érr?r, Efr. 3%". w. 333, wag? gm Tl. g Wm, WEFr firm éaTaaTazr, :if‘gm maii‘éilciw, Ewmma wag? gig: Ir. g z VA A. maTz‘r, ma. éa°rfauf€~rr n'e‘TLuq''mm, wag? gw. Ir. g MERE qt? 3W3 WW 19.. Em: g’czar war mm’im 3r?4’f‘:m. >OO( :: HTEW wm femur :: mm) air ”mam WW w‘é 3! afnh war? I mm m if Erfrfra 3am? 1 m mmmw ‘ ’ mmiiwm B: Hq’ble Shri Manindra ohan Shrivastava' 22.03.2010 > Shri Rakesh Anthony, c unsel for the petitioner. ' Shri Chandresh Shr' astava, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents N0. 2, 3 8a 4. ‘ This petition has been led by the petitioner claiming parity of.treatment in the matter of nt of higher pay—scale. Petitioner working as Lab Technician in the Engineering College at Raipur claims benefit of grant of high r pay-scale as has been granted to Lab Technicians in the Dep rtment of Higher Education vide Government Circular dated 2 .l.1996/2.1.1996 (Annexure A-3) followed. by Circular dated 13.7. 999 (Annexure A—4). that if the benefit of higher pay- scale upon completion of 15 y ,‘ars of service has been granted to Lab Technician of the Higher E ucation Department, petitioner who is also substantively holding t post of Lab Technician though in Engineering Colleges under the Department of Manpower Planning is entitled to similar benefit. Petitioner also refers to letter dated 24.10.1996 (Annexure A-5) of the Director, Technical Education ginfor'ming the Principal, Govt. Engineering College, Raipur that a detailed proposal in the matter of grant of higher pay—scale to those Lab Technician Who have completed 15 years of service has been sent to the Government and further action would be taken after receipt of further instructions from the Government. we are? S n J. a h. ’1 XLHC—22 R Sinha So far no return has beet 1 flled. Taking into considera involved, in my opinion ends of direction to respondent/State decision with regard to petitio seals, if not already decided. I dated 24.10.1996 '(Annexure A- remained pending since then. It be taken expeditiously. With this direction, petiti It is made clear that ofJinion on the merit of the case. tion the nature of controversy justice would be served in issuing OEChhattisgarh to take appropriate n r’s claim for grant of higher pay— ‘rom departmental communication 5), it appears that the matter has is expected that the decision would on is finally disposed of. ‘ l Sdl- an shrivaSFaVa \Man‘QQEEM . 0*iiludg V [nae eta? tihis Court has not expressed any e