Chattisgarh High Court
Bharat Bhushan Sharma vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 October, 2022
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 6718 of 2022
Bharat Bhushan Sharma S/o Shri Bhola Ram Sharma, aged about 45
years Presently Working As Lecturer (L.B.) At Government Diet,
Maharajpur, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), 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. Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Kabirdham, District : Kawardha
(Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner : Mr. Kaushal Yadav, Advocate
For State : Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Dy. A.G.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Order on Board
20.10.2022
Heard.
1. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed
on the post of Shikshakarmi Grade-II on 06.08.2008. Thereafter, the
petitioner participated in the recruitment process and he was appointed on
the post of Shikshakarmi Grade-I vide order dated 16.07.2011. As per the
notification issued by the State Government dated 17.05.2013 wherein, 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
service of the petitioner has been counted from 06.08.2016. 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 in view of the issue already considered and
decided by this Court, at this stage, the grievance of the petitioner will be
redressed if the direction is issued to respondent No. 3 to consider and
decide the representation of the petitioner vide Annexure-P/5 dated
19.02.2019 for grant of revised pay scale w.e.f 06.08.2016.
2. 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. 3, at the earliest, he is having no objection.
3. The petitioner has placed on record Notification dated 17.05.2013
(Annexure-P/1). Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he
was not given the benefit of revised pay scale with respect of the period
w.e.f 06.08.2016 erroneously.
4. In view of the submission made by counsel for the parties, it is directed
that the respondent No. 3 shall decide the representation of the petitioner
i.e. Annexure-P/5 dated 19.02.2019, 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).
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. 3 to consider and
decide representation on its own merits.
6. With the aforementioned observation and direction, the writ petition stands
disposed of.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
JUDGE
Saurabh
