Chattisgarh High Court
Mrs. Mary Usha Lakra vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 7 December, 2022
-1-
NAFR
HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 8395 of 2022
1. Mrs. Mary Usha Lakra W/o Mr Kaldiyus Lakra Aged About 47 Years
Post Lecturer (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary
School Around, Block Charama, District Uttar Bastar Kanker
Chhattisgarh
2. Romnath Sahu S/o Mr. Jageshwar Ram Sahu Aged About 44 Years
Post Lecturer (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary
School Aroud, Block Charama, District Uttar Baster Kanker
Chhattisgarh
3. Janak Lal Thakur S/o Mr. Ghana Ram Thakur Aged About 52 Years
Post Lecturer (Local Body), Posted At Government Higher
Secondary School Aroud, Block Charama, District Uttar Baster
Kanker Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Education
Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. Secretary Panchayat And Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh
3. Director Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya,
Naya Raipur Distict Raipur Chhattisgarh
4. District Education Officer District Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh
5. Zila Panchayat Uttar Baster Kanker Through Its Chief Executive
Officer, Zila Panchayat, District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
_____________________________________________________________
For Petitioners : Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate
For State : Shri Anshuman Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer
S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
Order On Board
06/12/2022
Heard.
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1
was initially appointed as Shikshak (Panchayat) on 19.08.2006,
thereafter petitioner participated and got appointed on the post
of Lecturer (Panchayat) on 10.07.2008 and she was entitled for
benefit of revised pay scale from 19.08.2014 but was extended
benefit from 05.10.2019. Petitioner No.2 initially appointed as
Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) on 01.07.2008 and thereafter he
was appointed as Lecturer (Panchayat) on 14.06.2010 and he
was entitled for benefit of revised pay scale from 01.07.2016 but
was extended benefit from 01.03.2019. Petitioner No.3 initially
appointed as Teacher (Panchayat) 22.07.2005 and thereafter
appointed as Lecturer (LB) on 10.07.2008 and he was entitled
for benefit of revised pay scale from 22.07.2013 but was
extended benefit from 05.12.2019. He submits that benefit of
revised pay scale is extended to petitioners from the date of
issuance of order and not from the date of their entitlement. As
petitioner was held entitled for benefit of revised pay scale after
completion of 8 years of service but pecuniary benefits have
been extended prospectively from the date of order.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per the
notification issued by the State Government dated 17.05.2013,
the Teacher (Panchayat) who have completed 8 years of service
are entitled for the revised pay scale. The petitioner was
extended the benefit of revised pay scale pursuant to the
notification dated 17.05.2013, but financial benefit is extended
from 02.12.2019 only and not from 22.12.2017. He contended
that the issue of considering the period of service in which any
of the employees have worked in the lower post are to be
considered is decided in WPS No. 2530 of 2017 (Mukesh
Kumar Patel and another versus State of Chhattisgarh and
another) and the case of the petitioners is covered by the said
judgment. He also referred to the order passed in case of
Avinesh Kumar Namdev and Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
and Ors (WPS No. 5328 of 2021). Counsel for the petitioners
submits that as the issue is already considered and decided by
this Court, at this stage, grievance of the petitioner would be
redressed if petitioners are permitted to submit representation
before respondent No. 5 and in turn, respondent No.5 be
directed to consider and decide the representation of petitioners
at the earliest for grant of arrears of revised pay scale for the
intervening period.
3. Learned counsel for the State submits that in view of submission
of learned counsel for the petitioner that his representation be
considered and decided by respondent No. 5, at the earliest, he
is having no objection.
4. Considering submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners,
this petition is finally disposed of permitting petitioners to submit
a representation before respondent No. 5, who, in turn, is
directed to consider and decide the representation to be
submitted by petitioners at the earliest, preferably within a
period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of representation in
accordance with law, subject to verification of the facts, keeping
in mind decision rendered in the case of Avinesh Kumar
Namdev (supra).
5. With the aforementioned observation and direction, the writ
petition stands disposed of.
6. Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Balram
