Petitioners challenged denial of past service for absorption despite its acceptance for pay revision. Court directed respondents to clarify inconsistency within 90 days and disposed of the writ petition.
Case to be scrutinized by Respondents 1 & 2 within 90 days for appropriate order on counting past service for absorption.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 2299 of 2020
Versus
For Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate For State : Ms. Akansha Jain, Dy. G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri
Order
04.09.2020
1. The grievance of the petitioners in the present writ petition is the non-acceptance of the past service rendered by the petitioners as Assistant Teacher (P) by the respondents for the purpose of absorption in the Education Department.
2
2. The details of the initial appointment of and petitioners and the subsequent appointment and the post against which they were appointed on two occasions are reflected in the chart as produced below:
| Name of the Petitioner | Date of appointment |
initial | Date of subsequent appointment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Petitioner No. 1 | 28.06.2008 | 12.08.2010 | |
| S.K.-2 | S.K.-1 | ||
| Petitioner No. 2 | 13.08.2008 | 12.08.2010 | |
| S.K.-3 | S.K.-2 | ||
| Petitioner No. 3 | 01.07.2008 | 12.08.2010 | |
| S.K.-3 | S.K.-2 |
3. For the purpose of grant of revised pay scale, the State Govt. has taken the past service rendered as Assistant Teacher (P) of the petitioners and has granted the benefit of revised pay scale on completion of 8 years service starting from the time when the petitioners were initially appointed as Assistant Teacher (P).
4. The grievance of the petitioners now is that though the Department has accepted the past service of the petitioners for the purpose of revised pay scale but for the purpose of counting the total length of service for absorption in the Education Department, the past service is not being considered.
5. This Court does not find any strong reason or ground on the part
3
petitioners for the purpose of absorption particularly when the department has counted the past service for the purpose of grant of revised pay scale.
6. Given the aforesaid fact, let the case of the petitioners be scrutinized by respondents 1 & 2 and an appropriate order be passed as to why the past service of the petitioners cannot be counted for the purpose of absorption when the Department itself has counted the said period for the purpose of revised pay scale. Let an order be passed by respondents 1 & 2 within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It shall be the responsibility of the petitioners to apprise respondents 1 & 2 so far as the order passed by this Court is concerned. The petitioners would be at liberty to file a suitable representation, if they so want, supported with all relevant documents.
7. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(Goutam Bhaduri)
Vishakha
2 issues framed by the court
Whether past service accepted for revised pay scale should also be counted for absorption in the Education Department.
Whether the State can refuse past service for absorption while accepting it for pay revision.
Kriparam Koliyare
Mohan Ram Wadde
Ku. Purnima Netam
State Of Chhattisgarh
Director Directorate Of Chhattisgarh Public Instruction
District Education Officer Narayanpur
Goutam Bhaduri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
