Disposed

G.S. Makkad v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC22 Jun 2021WPS/5385/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by a teacher regarding correction in pay fixation. The court directed the District Education Officer to consider the petitioner's representations within two months without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed District Education Officer to consider petitioner's representations regarding pay fixation within two months; no expression on merits.

G.S. Makkad Vs State of Chhattisgarh… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 5385 of 2009

¶5

G.S. Makkad, Aged about 46 years, S/o Shri R.S.
Makkad, Working as Upper Division Teacher, At S.S.
Kali Badi Higher Secondary School, Raipur, Distt.
Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

 ---Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through its Secretary, Department of School Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur.

¶9

2. The Director, Public Instructions, Chhattisgarh, H.Q. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

3. The District Education Officer, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

4. The Governing body of Kalibadi Shiksha Samiti, Through its Secretary, S.S. Kalibadi Higher Secondary School, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

 --- Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner:-Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate
For State:-Mr. Ravi Bhagat, Dy. G.A.

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶15

Order on Board (Through Video Conferencing)

¶16

22/06/2021

¶17

1. Heard.

¶18

¶19

2.Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the
petitioner would submit that petitioner has made
two representations before the District Education
Officer, Raipur for correction in his pay fixation
has he has already been given the benefit of time
bound promotion w.e.f. 14/07/1998 but the pay
fixation ought to have been done in the basic pay
of Rs. 2,000/- which has not been done and the
difference of pay has not been paid and moreover,
his representations have also not been considered
and decided.

¶20

3. Be that as it may, District Education Officer / competent authority is directed to consider dispose of petitioner's representations within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.

¶21

4. With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. No cost(s).

¶22

Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Judge

¶23

Harneet

G.S. Makkad v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.S. Makkad 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

Dharamdas Vs (Deleted) Pahatiya Satnami

Gajadhar Deadthr. Lrs Vs Ramsharan and Ors.

Amresh Singh Deseased Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Gyan Singh Vs South Eastern Coalfields Ltd.andORS.

Chameli Bai Vs Goverdhan Th.Lr'S and Ors.

Smt. Veena Shrivastava Vs State of C.G. and Ors.