qCTfeF'ih iTtRaT •? .fe^ TfSi^n ^<iiw:afet 3tA?f ^ 3(fOT WT^ HON'BLE MR. N.K.AGARWAL J. 04.04.2014 Shri P.R.Patankar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Majid Ali, P.L. for the Sfate/respondents. Heard. The petitioner has been fjromoted as Data Entry Operator on 23.07.2005. Asper the State Gdvernment's Circular dated 22.07.2011 (Annexure P/2), the petitioner is en|lptled for revised pay scale af Rs.520020200+2400, as per 6" Pay Ctimmission, w.e.f. 01.04.2006. The petitioner's grievance is that the same is not being paid to the petitioner. In reply to above, Shri Majitl Ali, State Counsel submits that if the petitioner's files fresh representatj:|on, the same shall be considered in accordance with law, to which, couitsel for the petitioner has no objection. Accordingly, the petition s t^ ndsr disposed of. If the petitioner files fresh representation along with a ctpy of the petition before the competent authority of the respondents, then |the competent authority is directed to consider and decide the same in (ccordance with law, on its own merits, as early as possible, preferably, w\|hin a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of representation. Howe)ier, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the i|nerits of the matter and the competent authority shall decide the represent^tion strictly in accordance with law. With the above, the petition ^tands disposed of.
