Rohit Kumar Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 7183 Chatt

                                     1



                                                                      NAFR

             HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                    Writ Petition (S) No. 8126 of 2022
•   Rohit Kumar Sahu S/o Late Dwarika Prasad Sahu Aged About 46
    Years presently working as Lecturer (L.B.) Govt. High School
    Panwarjali, Block Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.)
                                                             ------Petitioner

                                   VERSUS
1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of
   Panchayat and Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan,
   Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
2. Commissioner-Cum-Director Directorate of Panchayat, Naya Raipur,
   District Raipur (C.G.)
3. Chief Executive Officer       Zila    Panchayat,   Kabirdham,     District
   Kabirdham (C.G.)
4. District Education Officer Kabirdham, District Kabirdham (C.G.)
                                                     -------Respondents
               (cause title is taken from Case Information System)

       For Petitioner        : Mr. C.J.K. Rao, Advocate
       For Respondents-State : Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Dy. Adv. General

        Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
                                    ORDER

30/11/2022

1. Heard

2. The limited grievance which the petitioner has raised in the present

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

case of Mukesh Kumar Patel vs. State of Chhattisgarh (WPS

No.2530/2017, decided on 26.11.2017) has been granted benefit of

revised pay-scale on completion of 8 years of service.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance, which

now remains, is that the benefit is being provided to the petitioner

prospectively. Petitioner was entitled for the benefit from the date of

his completion of 8 years of service, but no effective order has been

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

arrears of payment. The petitioner prays for appropriate direction to

the respondents for releasing the said amount.

4. Taking into consideration the submission of learned counsel for

petitioner, judgment of this Court in the case of Mukesh Kumar

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 petitioner, let

respondents 2 & 3 take appropriate decision at the earliest, so far as

release of arrears of payment is concerned, which the petitioner is

entitled for. The petitioner is also directed to move representation

before the said authorities as well. It is expected from the concerned

authorities that the authorities 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 petitioner.

5. With the aforesaid observation and direction, writ petition is finally

disposed of.

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

merits of the case it is for Respondents No. 2 & 3 to decide the claim

of petitioner on their own merits.

Sd/-

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

/P a w a n