Sushil Kumar Patel vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 7121 Chatt

                                      -1-




                                                                        NAFR

                 HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR


                         WPS No. 7949 of 2022
     Sushil Kumar Patel S/o Pratap Ram Patel Aged About 43 Years
     Presently Working As Lecturer (L.B.) At Govt. Higher Secondary
     School Mittunavagaon, Block Kota, District : Bilaspur, 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, Chhattisgarh
  4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur,
     District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
  5. District Education Officer, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur 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

became entitled for the revised pay-scale after completion of 8

years of service as on 01.05.2013 which is also mentioned in

the order dated 25.05.2017 whereby benefit of revised pay-scale

is extended to the petitioner, but difference of the revised pay-

scale than the salary paid to the petitioner has not been given to

him from 01.05.2013 to 25.05.2017.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

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

01.05.2005. Thereafter, the petitioner participated in the

recruitment process and he was appointed on the post of

Shikshakarmi Grade-I vide order dated 22.06.2010. 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. The petitioner was

extended the benefit of revised pay scale pursuant to the

notification dated 17.05.2013, but the services of the petitioner

has been counted from 25.05.2017 only and not from

01.05.2013. 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 direction is issued to respondent No. 4 to

consider and decide the representation of the petitioner at the

earliest which is Annexure-P/5 dated 22.11.2021 for grant of

revised pay scale for the intervening period from 01.05.2013 to

25.05.2017.

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. 4, at the earliest, he

is having no objection.

4. The petitioner has placed on record Notification dated

17.05.2013 (Annexure-P/2). Submission of learned counsel for

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

scale with respect of the period from 01.05.2013 to 25.05.2017

erroneously.

5. In view of submission of learned counsel for the petitioner,

respondent No. 4 is directed to consider and decide pending

representation dated 22.11.2021 at the earliest, preferably within

a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order

in accordance with law, subject to verification of the facts,

keeping in mind the decision rendered in the case of Avinesh

Kumar Namdev (supra).

6. 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.

7. With the aforementioned observation and direction, the writ

petition stands disposed of.

8. Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/------/--/-

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

Praveen