Sanjay Kumar Vaishnav vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6410 Chatt

                                                                                                 NAFR

                 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                     WPS No. 6531 of 2022

   Sanjay Kumar Vaishnav S/o Shri Bedu Das Vaishnav, aged about 45 years
      Presently Working As Lecturer (L.B.) At Govt. Higher Secondary School
      Kanjheta, Block Pandariya, District- 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. The Secretary, Department Of Education Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal
      Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

  3. Commissioner-Cum-Director, Directorate Of Panchayat Atal Nagar Raipur,
      District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

  4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Kabirdham, District Kabirdham,
      Chhattisgarh

  5. District Education Officer, Kabirdham District 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 04.05.2005. Thereafter, the

petitioner participated in the recruitment process and he was appointed on the post of Shikshakarmi Grade-I vide order dated 25.06.2009. 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 29.07.2016 only and not

from 04.05.2013. 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. 4 to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner at the

earliest which is Annexure-P/3 dated 19.02.2019 for grant of revised pay

scale for the intervening period from 04.05.2013 to 29.07.2016.

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. 4, 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 04.05.2013 to 29.07.2016 erroneously.

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

4 is directed to consider and decide pending representation 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. 4 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