Chattisgarh High Court
Prafull Kumar Tiwari vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 November, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 7483 of 2022
• Prafull Kumar Tiwari S/o Late Surendra Tiwari Aged About 40 Years
presently working as Teacher (L.B) at Govt. Middle School
Sirmadabri, Block Pandariya, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham),
Chhattisgarh
------Petitioner
VERSUS
1. State of Chhattisgarh through its Secretary, Department of Panchayat
and Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar,
Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Commissioner-Cum-Director, Directorate of Panchayat, Atal Nagar
Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Kabirdham, District :
Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh
4. Block Education Officer, Block Pandariya, District : Kawardha
(Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh
-------Respondents
(cause title is taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Kaushal Yadav, Advocate
For Respondent-State : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Panel Lawyer
Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
ORDER
17/11/2022
1. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was initially
appointed as Siksha Karmi Gr.III on 22.10.2005. While working on
the post, he submitted application for appointment on the post of
Siksha Karmi Gr.II in which he became successful and was
appointed on 04.10.2008. On 17.05.2013, State Government issued
a notification specifying that the Teachers (Panchayat) are entitled
for revised pay scale on completion of 08 years of service and the
services of employees who have performed in lower posts are also
to be considered. Pursuant to notification dated 17.05.2013, benefit
of revised pay scale was extended to petitioner vide order dated
21.09.2016. Petitioner was held entitled for the revised pay scale
w.e.f. 28.10.2013 and benefits have been extended to petitioner
from 21.09.2016 and not from the date when he became entitled ie.,
28.10.2013, therefore, petitioner is entitled for arrears of the
difference of the revised pay scale from 22.10.2013 to 21.09.2016.
He also pointed out that similar matter came up for hearing in WPS
No. 2530 of 2017 (Mukesh Kumar Patel and another vs. State of
C.G. and another) and WPS No. 5328 of 2021 (Avinesh Kumar
Namdev and others vs. State of C.G. and others). These writ
petitions were disposed of directing the petitioner to submit a
representation before the authorities and further direction was
issued to the concerned authorities to decide the representation of
petitioners at the earliest, therefore, case of present petitioner is
squarely covered by the said judgments and petitioner prays for
similar relief in this case.
2. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that in view of the
submission of learned counsel for petitioner making limited prayer of
submitting a representation before the concerned authorities, he is
having no objection.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. Petitioner has placed on record the notification dated 17.05.2013
issued by the State Government as also the order dated 21.09.2016
whereby petitioner along with other similar situated teachers have
been granted benefit of revised pay scale, wherein petitioner has
been shown at serial No. 18 having date of fixation of revised pay
scale w.e.f. 28.10.2013 and further the submission of learned
counsel for petitioner that benefit has been extended to petitioner
from the date 21.09.2016, I find it appropriate to dispose of this writ
petition directing the petitioner to submit a detailed representation
before Respondent No. 3 and further directing Respondent No. 3 to
decide the representation at the earliest.
5. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of and the petitioner is directed
to submit a detailed representation alongwith necessary documents
before Respondent No. 3/ Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat
Kabirdham, Dist. Kabirdham, C.G., within a period of 02 weeks from
today and if such a representation is submitted by petitioner,
Respondent No. 3 shall consider and decide the same expeditiously
preferably within an outer limit of 06 weeks from the date of receipt
of representation, keeping in mind the decision of this Hon'ble court
in cases of Mukesh Kumar Patel (supra) and Avinesh Kumar
Namdev (supra).
6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the
merits of claim of petitioner, it is Respondent No. 3 to consider and
decide the representation on its own merit.
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
/P a w a n
