Smt. Seema Bhagat vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1749 Chatt

                                                                          NAFR
               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                           WPS No. 2107 of 2022
     1. Smt. Seema Bhagat W/o Shri Shivnath Bhagat, Aged About 42 Years
        Working As Lecturer, Govt. Higher Secondary School, Kushmi, Block
        - Sankargarh, District - Balrampur (C.G.)
     2. Sita Rao Bhaskar, D/o Shri Girdhari Ram Aged About 40 Years
        Working As Lecturer, Boys Govt. Higher Secondary School,
        Sankargarh, District - Balrampur (C.G.)      ---- Petitioners
                                        Versus
     1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School
        Education Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur
        (C.G.)
     2. Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development,
        Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (C.G.)
     3. Commissioner-Cum-Director, Directorate Of Panchayat, Atal Nagar,
        Naya Raipur (C.G.)
     4. Director Public Instructions Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)
     5. Collector, Balrampur, District- Balrampur (C.G.)
     6. Chief Executive      Officer,    Jila   Panchayat,   Balrampur,    District-
        Balrampur (C.G.)
     7. District Education Officer, Balrampur, District- Balrampur (C.G.)
                                                               ---- Respondents

For Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Chauhan, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Ravi Bhagat, Dy. GA

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 31/03/2022

The limited grievance which the petitioners have raised in this

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

Mukesh Kumar Patel Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (WPS No. 2530 of

2017 decided on 26.11.2017) have 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

petitioners prospectively and though the respondents have made a calculation, which the petitioners were entitled from the date of their

completion of 8 years of service, but no effective orders have been

passed nor have department has taken any steps for release of the

arrears of payment. The petitioners 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 petitioners, 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

petitioners are entitled for. The petitioners are also directed to furnishe

the representation before the said authorities as well. It is expected

from the concerned authorities that they shall take decision in this

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

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

petitioners.

4. The present writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy)

Judge

Pawan