Smt. Ambika Rathiya vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 7116 Chatt

                                      -1-




                                                                       NAFR

                 HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                         WPS No. 8265 of 2022
     Smt. Ambika Rathiya W/o Kala Prasad Rathiya Aged About 41 Years
     Presently Working As Lecturer (L.B.) At Govt. Higher Secondary
     School, Bargarh, Block Kharsiya, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
                                                              ---- Petitioner
                                  Versus
  1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The 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. Director, Directorate School Education Department,             Indrawati
     Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
  4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Raigarh, District : Raigarh,
     Chhattisgarh
  5. District Education Officer, Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
                                                          ---- Respondents

______________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. CJK Rao and Mr. Kaushal Yadav, Advocates For State : Mr. Akash Pandey, Panel Lawyer

S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 28/11/2022

Heard.

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

was initially appointed on the post of Shikshakarmi Grade-III on

31.12.2008. Thereafter, petitioner participated in the recruitment

process and she was appointed on the post of Shikshakarmi

Grade-I vide order dated 07.12.2010. 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. Petitioner was extended benefit of

revised pay scale pursuant to notification dated 17.05.2013,

however, arrears of revised pay-scale from 31.12.2016 to

31.12.2019 has not been granted to the petitioner. 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 petitioner is covered by the said

judgment. He also referred to the order passed by co-ordinate

Bench of this Court in case of Avinesh Kumar Namdev and

Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors (WPS No. 5328 of

2021). Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the issue has

already been considered and decided by this Court, at this

stage, the grievance of the petitioner would be redressed if the

petitioner is permitted to submit a representation before

respondent No. 4 and in turn, respondent No.4 be directed to

consider and decide the representation of the petitioner at the

earliest for grant of revised pay scale for the intervening period

from 31.12.2016 to 31.12.2019.

2. Learned counsel for the State submits that in view of submission

of learned counsel for the petitioner that her representation be

considered and decided by respondent No. 4, at the earliest, he

is having no objection.

3. The petitioner has placed on record Notification dated

17.05.2013 (Annexure-P/3). Submission of learned counsel for

the petitioner is that she was not given the benefit of revised pay

scale with respect of the period from 31.12.2016 to 31.12.2019.

erroneously.

4. In view of submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, this

petition is finally disposed of permitting the petitioner to submit a

representation before respondent No. 4 who, in turn, is directed

to consider and decide the representation to be submitted by the

petitioner 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 the

decision rendered in the case of Avinesh Kumar Namdev

(supra).

5. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on

the merits of claim of the petitioner and it will be for respondent

No. 4 to consider and decide representation on its own merits.

6. With the aforementioned observation and direction, the writ

petition stands disposed of.

7. Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/---/--/-

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

Praveen