Remanded

Mahendra Kumar Thakkar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC13 Feb 2019WPS/2189/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court remanded the petitioner's case regarding proforma promotion and increment benefits to the respondent for verification. The court found the rejection based on the gradation list contradictory to an earlier decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's case was remanded to the Second Respondent for reconsideration and scrutiny within 4 months to grant benefits similar to those given to similarly placed persons under the 1990 Tribuna

Mahendra Kumar Thakkar Vs State Of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2019)

¶1

-1-

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2189 of 2017

¶4

Mahendra Kumar Thakkar S/o Vitthal Das Thakkar Aged About 68 Years Retired Assistant Grade-Il, Sanjog Complex, Street No. 1, Lalbagh, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

¶5

---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

The Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Division No. 1, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

	---Respondents
For Petitioner	: Mr. Anup Majumdar, Advocate
For State	: Mr. Saleem Kazi,Dy. A.G.

¶10

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy

¶11

Order on Board

¶12

13/02/2019

¶13

The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is for a direction to the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for grant of proforma promotion to the post of Assistant Grade-II w.e.f. 16.09.1980.

¶14

The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner also is a person, who was appointed under the respondents prior to 22.08.1973 as Assistant Grade-III (earlier known as LDC), but the petitioner had not passed the typing examination.

¶15

Since the petitioner had not passed the typing examination, the petitioner was not granted the benefit of increment till 1993. Thereafter, the petitioner was passed the typing examination and was later on promoted on the post of Assistant Grade-II.

¶16

-2-

¶17

The grievance of the petitioner is that the persons, who were appointed along with the petitioner or were subsequently appointed before 22.08.1973, had approached the State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in a series of original applications seeking for grant of benefit of the increment from the date of their initial appointment without insisting of the passing of the typing examination and the State Administrative Tribunal vide its order dated 01.12.1990 allowed the same and had specifically held that all those persons, who have been appointed as a LDC and who have not passed the typing examination and who have been appointed up till 22.08.1973 would be entitled for grant of annual increment without insistence of the requirement of passing of the typing examination. The said order has been implemented in respect of all those employees.

¶18

Similarly placed other employees also, when they approached the High Court, have been granted the benefit, but the petitioner inspite of repeated representations being made, has been denied the said advantage. Finally, vide Annexure P/6 dated 26.11.2013, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected only on the ground that the name of the petitioner did not find place in the gradation list of the employees working in Raipur circle.

¶19

The petitioner, in between, has obtained information under the Right to Information Act i.e. the gradation list, in which the name of the petitioner stands reflected at serial No.13 and his date of appointment also has been shown as 25.06.1973 i.e. prior to the cut of date fixed by the State Administrative Tribunal. This information provided under the Right to Information Act seems to be in

¶20

-3-

¶21

contradiction to the reasons assigned by the authorities concerned, while rejecting his claim application .

¶22

Given the said facts, the order Annexure P/6 dated 26.11.2013 does not seem to be after due verification of facts and records. The matter therefore needs reconsideration and is being remitted back to the respondent No.2 to scrutinize the case of the petitioner in accordance with the relief, which has been granted to similarly placed persons as per the order of the State Administrative Tribunal dated 01.12.1990 Annexure P/1 and thereafter grant similar benefit, which have already been extended to all those persons, who had approached the State Administrative Tribunal and in whose case the order of the Tribunal has been implemented.

¶23

Let this exercise be completed within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

¶24

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed off.

¶25

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge

¶26

Ved

Mahendra Kumar Thakkar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Kumar Thakkar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharatram Sahu Vs the Collector

Hariram Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Surendra Singh Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Amit Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh through Principal Secretary Higher Education Department, Mantralaya

Mithalesh Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ku. Bindiya Chandrakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh