Chattisgarh High Court
Krishna Kumar Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 October, 2022
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 6629 of 2022
Krishna Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Narmada Prasad Yadav, aged about 42
years Presently Working as Lecturer (L.B.) At Govt. High School Pakariya
(Jhulan), Block Akaltara, District : Janjgir-Champa, 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, Janjgir, District : Janjgir-Champa,
Chhattisgarh
4. Block Education Officer Block Akaltara, District : Janjgir-Champa,
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 05.07.2008. Thereafter, the
petitioner participated in the recruitment process and he was appointed on
the post of Shikshakarmi Grade-I vide order dated 25.08.2011. 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 17.01.2019 only and not
from 05.07.2016. 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 for grant
of revised pay scale for the intervening period from 05.07.2016 to
17.01.2019.
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
from 05.07.2016 to 17.01.2019 erroneously.
4. In view of the submission made by counsel for the parties, the petitioner is
directed to submit a representation within a period of three weeks before
the respondent No. 3. If such representation is filed, the respondent No.3
shall decide the same at the earliest, preferably within a period of 6 weeks
from the date of receipt of copy of the 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. 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
