Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Kiran Khare vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 November, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 7625 of 2022
• Smt. Kiran Khare W/o Gopanand Khare Aged About 35 Years
working as Lecturer (L.B.) at Government High School, Gudum,
Block Dondi, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh
------Petitioner
VERSUS
1. State of Chhattisgarh through its Secretary, Department of Panchayat
and Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar
Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Commissioner Cum Director Directorate of Panchayat, Atal Nagar
Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Balod, District : Balod,
Chhattisgarh
4. District Education Officer Balod, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh
5. Block Education Officer Dondi, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh
-------Respondents
(cause title is taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Govind Dewangan, Advocate
For Respondent-State : Mr. Anshuman Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer
Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
ORDER
28/11/2022
1. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was initially
appointed as Siksha Karmi Gr.III on 16.02.2009. While working on
the post, she submitted application for appointment on the post of
Siksha Karmi Gr.II in which she became successful and was
appointed in the year 2010 and thereafter as Lecturer (English). 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 18.02.2019.
Petitioner was held entitled for the revised pay scale w.e.f.
20.02.2017 and benefits have been extended to petitioner from
18.02.2019 and not from the date when she became entitled ie.,
20.02.2017, therefore, petitioner is entitled for arrears of the revised
pay scale from 20.02.2017 to 18.02.2019. 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 petitioner was
extended benefit of revised pay scale which is apparent from
Annexure P-4. He however 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. Taking into consideration the limited grievance raised by petitioner
in this writ petition as also Annexure P-4 order dated 18.02.2019
whereby petitioner along with other similar situated teachers have
been granted benefit of revised pay scale, wherein petitioner has
been shown at serial No. 15 having date of fixation of revised pay
scale w.e.f. 20.02.2017 and further the submission of learned
counsel for petitioner that benefit has been extended from
18.02.2019, 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
Balod, Dist. Balod, 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 04 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).
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
/P a w a n
