Partly allowed

Jamwant Patel and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC12 Sept 2011WPS/5087/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging delayed regular pay scale for teachers. Petitioner argued entitlement from date of appointment based on Supreme Court precedents. Court allowed a representation for review of facts and merits without expressing opinion on the core issue.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to make representation to authorities for entitlement to regular pay scale from date of initial appointment; directed gist to consider case on merits.

Jamwant Patel and Ors. Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2011)

¶1

ct?^f66%

¶2

CD $mgm^Emma

¶3

1N THE^{HIGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR} w. P. (S)^No. 5M)? OF 2011.

¶4

:rl. Jamwant^Patel; PETITIONERS‘ S/o.^{lateShriSarahuRam} Patel,^agedabout55 years, Upper^{DivisionTeacher,} Govt. Middle^{SchoolKeshla,} Block^{Tilda,DistrictRaipur} (c.G.)

¶5

2.^{/'ManharanLalVerma,} S / o. Shri^PunauRam Verma,^agedabout51 years, Upper^{DivisionTeacher,} Adarsh,^{Govt.MiddleSchool} Tarashiv,^BlockTilda, District^Raipur (C.^G.)

¶6

/N[ahesh Kumar Bairahat, S / o.Shri^ThanwarDas Bairahat,^{agedvabopt5'7} years,^{Teacher,Govt.} Primary School^Konari, Block^{Tilda,DistrictRaipur} co. ) «ft, 4. Jagdish^PrasadSahu, S/o. Shri^JularamSahu, aged about⁵³ years,^Head Master,^{Govt.PrimarySchool} Sirave,^{BlockTilda,District} Raipur (C.^G.)

¶7

.....^J W” Chinta Ram Verma, S/o. Shri Sonsai Verma, aged about 52‘years, Upper Divisioh Teacher, Govt. Middle School B.N.B. Navra, Block Tilda, District Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS :1.^/§tate of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, School Education Department 7 D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C. G.) w” District Education Officer, Raipur, District Raipur, (C. G.) Block Education Officer, Tilda, District Raipur, (C. G.)

¶8

WRIT^{PETITIONUNDERARTICLE} 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

¶9

Lté

¶10

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶11

(Hon.^{Mr.JusticePritinkerDiwaker)} Writ^P¢tition (S) No”^5087of mu

¶12

PETITIONERS

¶13

Jamwant Patel and others

¶14

VER$US

¶15

RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others

¶16

Shri Somkant Verma, counsel for the petitioners. Shri A. V. Sridhar, P.L. for the State.

¶17

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTELE 226 OF THE CONSI’ITUTION OF mDm

¶18

0 R D € R (12.09.2011)

¶19

Grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that the petitioner^wasappointed as Deputy Teacher on a fixed pay scale of Rs. 100 and after successfully completing the probation period,^hewas granted^regular pay^scale. 2. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he is entitled for regular pay scale with effect from the date of initial appointment and his case is squarely covered with number of decisions passed by this Court and also the judgment^{renderedbytheM.P.StateAdministrativeTribunal,} Jabalpur in O.A. No. 2745/89 (Madhukant Yadu & 56 Others Vs. State of M.P. & Others) wherein it has been held that similarly placed teachers are entitled for regular pay scale from the date of their initial appointment.

¶20

It is not disputed by both the parties that the matter was taken up by the State to the Apex Court but the appeal was also dismissed by the Apex Court upholding the decision of the Tribunal to the effect that the Teachers/Assistant

¶21

,1.”

¶22

Teachers are entitled for regular pay scale from the date of their initial appointment.

¶23

In viewof the above submission made by the counsel for the parties, the petition is disposed of in the same terms i.e. the petitioner is granted liberty to make a representation, if so advised, in the light of the aforesaid judgment and the circular dated 05.01.2011 (Annexure P-6) and in turn, the concerned respondent is directed to consider his case on its own merits and in its perspective. If the petitioner stands on the same footing as per order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal in Madhukant Yadu (supra) and subsequently confirmed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6892/93 by order dated 03.01.95, the petitioner may be entitled to same relief accordingly.

¶24

It is expected from the State authorities to pass suitable order after due scrutiny of the facts.

¶25

It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the'authority concemed Would be at liberty to decide the representation strictly in accordance with law.

¶26

Sd/—

¶27

Pritinker Diwaker Judge

Jamwant Patel and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jamwant Patel and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Son Singh Gond Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Shivnarayan Yadav and Another Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Hemant Shilledar and Another Vs State of Chhattisgarh and 01 Other

Lochan Prasad Mishra and Ors. Vs Chattisgarh Infr. Dev. Cor.Th.M.D.

Sheikh Asif Farukhi and Others Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chandrakanti Choubey and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.