Shweta Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6409 Chatt

                                                                                                 NAFR

                 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                    WPS No. 6614 of 2022

   Shweta Singh D/o Shri Yogendra Singh Aged About 36 Years Presently
      Working As Lecturer (L.B.) At Govt. High School Pakariya, 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 - Directot 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. Akash Pandey, P.L.




                      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 03.10.2008. Thereafter, the

petitioner participated in the recruitment process and he was appointed on the post of Shikshakarmi Grade-I vide order dated 30.01.2013. 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 15.02.2019 only and not

from 03.10.2016. 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 at the

earliest which is Annexure-P/4 dated 18.03.2019 for grant of revised pay

scale for the intervening period from 03.10.2016 to 15.02.2019.

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 03.10.2016 to 15.02.2019 erroneously.

4. In view of submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No.

3 is directed to consider and decide pending representation dated

18.03.2019 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