Partly allowed

Shyam Kumar Dewangan And Ors. v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC11 Jul 2014WPS/3154/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, Dresser Grade-1 health workers, challenged lower grade pay compared to similarly situated Attendants. Court found no basis to examine the substantive claim as the matter was pending before the State Government.

What did the court decide?

Disposed off the petition with a direction to the State Government to remove the pay disparity as early as possible pending initial decision on the proposal.

Shyam Kumar Dewangan And Ors. Vs State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

7^W D ® qc‘rd/ A’é

¶2

S.B. (Service Matter)

¶3

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH)

¶4

3)5k}~

¶5

WRIT PETITIONS) NO. /2014.

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

¶8

Shyam Kumar Dewangan, son of Shri Bedram Dewangan, aged about 29 years, working as Dresser Grade— 1, Community health Center,

¶9

Bamnidih, Block and RS. Bamnidih, District Janj gir—Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

Panchram Kanwar, son of Shobit Singh Kanwar, aged about 32 years, working as Dresser Grade-1, Primary Health Center Goghri, Malakharoda, District Janj gir—Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

Rainesh Kumar Binjhwar, son of Ramay Lal Binjhwar, aged about 3O years,^{workingasDresserGrade-1,} Primary Health Center Choriya, P.S. Saragaon, Block Bamnidih, District Janjgir—Champa, Chhattisgarh. Prajeet Kumar Mahipal, son of Padum Lal Mahipal, aged about 3O years,^{workingasDresserGrade-1,} Primary Health Center, Nariyara, Block and P.S. Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. Ku.Sangeeta Shanna, D/o Girish Kumar Sharma, aged about 32 years,^{workingasDresserGrade-1,} Primary Health Center, Birra P.S. Birra, District Janjgir—Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

¶13

¶14

Baldau Dewangan, Son of Ramnath Dewangan, aged about 3 1 years, workingas Drcsser Grade-1, District Hospital, Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

Rajola Prasad Banjare, son of Late Nayan Das Banjare, aged about 31 years,^{workingasDresserGrade-1,} Community Health Center, Baloda, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶16

VCI‘SUS

¶17

Respondents

¶18

State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, P.S. Rakhi, Tahsil Aarang, Mantralaya, Naya Rajpur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶19

. Secretary, Health and Family Welafre Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, P.S. Rakhi, Tahsil Aarang, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶20

Commissioner, Health and Family Welfare Department, Indravati Bhawan, Mantralaya, P.S. Rakhi, Tahsil Aarang, Mantralaya, Naya Rajpur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶21

Director Health Services, Sanchanalaya, Health Services, 3rd Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarlgg

¶22

¶23

@‘9

¶24

Deputy Director, Sanchanalaya, Health Services, 3rd Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District^Rajpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶25

Chief Medical and Health Officer, Janjgir—Champa, District Janjgir— Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶26

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF^THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

¶27

3w^3mm, Wang, WEg

¶28

L025 é> w-^3%7/4;

¶29

¶30

ammrw mamm	amtm (gafi awmafé‘dm	wu) Wmmfffa‘im mt
LA ,A‘M	B : Hon’ble Shri Manindra 11-07-14 Shri CJK Rao, counsel Shri Sangharsh Pand e copy. The grievance of the p writ petition is with regard to t According to the petitioners, t I and other similarly situate department as Technical Assi grade pay ^{though they have} petitioners. Learned counsel for t qualification, nature and du equivalent and at par, there grade pay. As against gr petitioners, ^{other similarly sit} Rs.2800/— as grade pay. Th direction to remove this anom‘ After going through the i find that this anomaly has Directorate, Chhattisgarh a issued to the State Govern S	ohan Shrivastava J. or the petitioner/s. , Dy.G.A. for the State on advance titioners as ventilated through this e disparity in payment of grade pay. ey are working as Dresser, Grade ^— empioyees working in the same tants /Attendants are getting higher ^beengiven ^samepay ^{scale as the} e petitioner submits that when the y of work and pay scale being s no basis for discrimination in the de pay, Rs.1900/- given to the ated employees have been granted refore, the respondents be issued ly. leadings and documents on record, been identified at the level of the d accordingly, a letter has been ent on 28/10/13 to consider this

¶31

3w m’rmaa, WI? mfg

¶32

%<br>

¶33

em m (mafimu)

¶34

Wmm mamm	Ewmmz‘‘dm «‘Q—	Wmmv§fwzl 1 ^2H
” i. j“ - Deepti	aspect towards removal of a has not taken any decisio Directorate. Therefore, in the would be served by keeping would be proper to dispose o State Government to take u disparityvasrzearly as possible. *yVith the aforesaid ob disposed off.	omaly. But the State Government on the proposal given by the e circumstances, no useful purpose is matter pending at this stage. It this petition with a direction to the ecision in the matter of aiieged servations, the petition is finally Sd/— ’ Manindra ^{Mohan Shriv‘astava} Judge

Shyam Kumar Dewangan And Ors. v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Kumar Dewangan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kailash Rajput Vs Regional Trasport Authority Raipur and Ors.

Smt. Chandrakanta Devi Verma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

M/s Ambachem Industries Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

B.n.bande Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Smt.veena Pahare And Anr. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Kamal Mani Patel Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.