Smt. Bharti Kori vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2665 Chatt

                                           1

                                                                              NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                WPS No. 5282 of 2021

   1. Smt. Bharti Kori W/o Shri Shyam Kori Aged About 50 Years Working As
      Assistant Sub Inspector (M), Superintendent Of Police (Tele Communication),
      R/o Netaji Complex B Block, 2nd Floor, Mandir Chowk, Jarhabhatha,
      Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

                                                                      ---- Petitioner

                                       Versus

   1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Finance Department,
      Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur
      (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

   2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department, Mahanadi
      Bhavan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

   3. Director General Of Police Police Head Quarters, Civil Lines, Raipur, District
      Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

   4. Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

   5. Superintendent Of Police Tele Communication, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur
      (Chhattisgarh)

   6. Joint Director Treasury, Account And Pension, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur,
      District - Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

                                                                 ---- Respondents

For Petitioner             :      Mr. K. S. Pawar, Advocate
For State                  :      Mr. Jitendra Pali, Dy. Advocate General.


                       Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
                                 Order On Board
01.10.2021

1. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the

petitioner has been denied the grant of ad hoc pay increment which

was paid to other similarly placed persons.

2. Counsel appearing for the parties jointly submit that the issue raised by

the petitioner herein has already been considered and decided by this

Court in a couple of writ petitions leading among which being WPS No.

4563/2006 (Abdul Nawab Khan Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others)

decided on 07.05.2009. The said order was also put to test before the

Supreme Court and the Supreme Court also affirmed the order passed

by this Court and it is stated at the bar that the said order has since

been complied with. Later on, a couple of writ petitions have also been

disposed of vide order dated 03.07.2015 in WPS No. 4523/2014

(Francis Xavier Back and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others)

and other connected petitions.

3. At this juncture, counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the

order passed in the case of Abdul Nawab Khan (supra), the State Govt.

has passed certain instructions.

4. So far as the issue decided by this Court through the judgment passed

in the case of Abdul Nawab Khan and also in the case of Francis

Xavier Back (supra) is concerned, the same is not disputed by the

State counsel.

5. Given the aforesaid factual matrix of the case, this Court is of the

opinion that the present writ petition also deserves to be disposed of in

similar terms.

6. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of in similar terms.

Since the Department has already constituted a Committee in this

regard as per the directions passed in the case of Francis Xavier Back

(supra), let the case of the petitioner herein also be examined by the

said Committee in the light of the decisions rendered earlier and the

circulars of the State Govt. in this regard and an appropriate decision

be taken at the earliest.

7. Counsel for the petitioner, at this juncture submits that the petitioner

has already made representations in this regard to the authority

concerned.

8. Hence, liberty is left open for the petitioner to prefer a fresh

representation within a period of 2 weeks from today before the

competent authority and the Committee thereafter shall examine the

issue in similar terms and take a decision as to whether the petitioner is

entitled for similar benefits or not which has been given to the similarly

placed persons.

9. Let the Committee take a decision within an outer limit of 90 days from

the date of receipt of fresh representation of the petitioner. It shall be

the responsibility of the petitioner to apprise the Committee as well as

respondent no.2 in respect of the order passed by this Court.

10.With the aforesaid observation the writ petitions stand disposed of.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge Jyoti