Arun Kumar Goutam v. State And ORS.
This judgment came from a scanned document and its text layer is unreliable — words may be garbled. Check the original PDF before relying on any passage.
i,,.
IN THE M.P.
STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENCH RAIPUR M.P.
O.A.No M^ /99 APPLICANTS/ PETITIONERS 1.
ARUN KUMAB GAUTAM aged years son of Pratap Singh Chhatriya.
2.
Rashik Kishore Dansena aged years son of Ramlal Dansena (Kalar).
3.
Basant Kumar Gautam aged years son of Shiv (^aj Singh Chhatriya.
< 4.
Sure'sh Kumar Nishad aged years son of Uderam Nishad.
5.
Dayaram Uraon aged 44 years son of Peela Babu 6.
Jagdish Prasad Tiwari aged years son of Hemlal Tiwari .
7.
Dev Narayan Sahu aged 45 years son of IshwafPrasad Teli.
8.
Rameshwar Nishad aged 52 years son of Amar Sidgh Nishad No.
to All working in Water Resources Deptt.
Irrigation Sub Division Baramkela, Division Raigarh Tahsil Sarangarh, Distt.
Raigarh M^.P.
9.
Peetamber Mishra aged 43 years son of Late Ram Hari Mishra.
10.
Premanand Pant aged years son of Sitaram Pant.
11.
Heera Das Manikpun aged years son of KanUk Das Hanikpuri c<- 12.
Shree Ram Patel aged years son of Anant Ram Patel.
No.
to all working in Water Resources Deptt.
Irrigation SubDivision Mand Division Raigarh, Tahsil Sarangarh, Distt.
Eaigarh M.P.
VER S U S l'..-i-.-lii-.'.
;';.
v..
y STATE OF M.P.
Through Secretary, Govt.
of M.P.
Water Resources Deptt.
(Irrigation) Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal M.P.
NON APPLICANTS RESPONDENTS^ > Engineer - in - Chief, Irrigation Deptt.
Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal M.P.
-^ ^-f.
Chief Engineer, Irrigation Deptt., Bilaspur M.P.
Superintending Engineer Irrigation Deptt.
Raigarh M.P.
Executive Engineer, Water Resources Deptt.
Raigarh M.P.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 19 OE THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT 1985.
c~iii^sa_lf~ ^^ '-^WM^., eiiiyis, M?i7??y ^».^.fu...........2&L.j.lo£ ^..:.....l..................^..^......../.....^^g S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Agarwa!
01.01.2014 i Shri MK Bhaduri and Shiji Kundan Singh Thakur, Advocates for the petitioners.
Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Law^er for the State.
Leamed counsel appearin^ for the petitioners submits that this petition may be disposed of dir^ctin ^cting the competent authority (i.e.
-'srepresentation.
State of CG) to consider the petiti]oner'
Prayer is not opposed and i^ allowed accordingly.
Accordingly, the writ petiljion is disposed of. However, ifthe petitioners file representation w|ithin a period of one month from today, the same shall be decidedj |by the resporident authorities on its own merits as eariy as possibl( months from the date of receipt preferably withm a period of six ai |3f copy of this order. No order asto costs.
BB ^:^ Sd/- N.K. Agrawa!
Judge Sahu gnsfliTi^TgCTRRT, u<<-<k'fM-»s/48-8/2012-80,000.