Rajesh Kumar Soni vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1314 Chatt

                                          -1-


                                                                                 NAFR
                 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                          Writ Petition (S) No. 1710 of 2022

   1. Rajesh Kumar Soni S/o Naresh Prasad Soni Aged About 45 Years
        Lecturer (L.B.), Govt. Higher Secondary School, Bakirma Ambikaur,
        District Surguja, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                    ---Petitioner(s)
                                        Versus
   1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Panchayat
        And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur,
        Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
   2.   The Secretary, Department Of Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan,
        Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
   3.   Commissioner Cum Director, Directorate of Panchayat, Atal Nagar Raipur,
        District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
   4.   Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Ambikapur, District Surguja,
        Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
   5.   District Education Officer, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                   ---Respondents

        For Petitioner              :      Shri CJK Rao, Advocate.
        For Respondent/State        :      Shri Ali Asgar, Dy. Advocate General.

                        Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
                                 Order on Board

14.03.2022

1. The limited grievance, which the petitioner has raised in the present writ

petition by virtue of the order passed by this Court in the case of Mukesh

Kumar Patel Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, {WPS No.2530/2017, decided on

26.11.2017} has been granted benefit of revised pay-scale on completion

of 8 years of service.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance, which now

remains, is that the benefit is being provided to the petitioner prospectively

and though the respondents have made a calculation, which the petitioner

was entitled from the date of his completion of 8 years of service, but no

effective order has been passed nor the department has taken any steps

for release of the arrears of payment. The petitioner pray for appropriate

direction to the respondents for releasing the said amount.

3. Without entering into the merits of the case and taking into consideration

the judgment of this Court in the case of Mukesh Patel (Supra), which has

also been affirmed by the Division Bench and taking note of the fact that

respondents have complied with the order to the extent of granting revised

pay scale to the petitioner, let respondents No.2 & 3 take an appropriate

decision at the earliest, so far as release of the arrears of payment is

concerned, which the petitioner is entitled for. The petitioner is also

directed to furnish the representation before the said authorities as well. It

is expected from the concerned authorities that he shall take decision in

this regard within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of

this order and/or from the date of receiving representation of the petitioner.

4. The writ petition is accordingly stands disposed of.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge inder