Partly allowed

Uttam Prasad Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC15 Mar 2021WPS/867/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged delay in granting regular pay scale despite 2008 appointment. Court disposed of writ petition directing respondents to examine contingency establishment applicability and decide eligibility for regular pay within four months.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents 2 to 4 to take appropriate decision within 4 months regarding applicability of contingency rules and eligibility for regular pay scale.

Uttam Prasad Sahu Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Writ Petition (S) No. 867 of 2021

¶5

Uttam Prasad Sahu S/o Shri Sant Ram Sahu, Aged About 46 Years Occupation - Vehicle Driver (Collector Rate), Office Of The Sub Divisional Officer (At Tehsil Office), Raipur Chhattisgarh, R/o Subhash Chandra Bose Ward No. 31, Phagni Bada, Ekta Chouk, Khamhardih, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya At Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492002

¶9

2. Collector (Revenue Branch), District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

3. Coordinator, District Project Rajiv Gandhi Shikhsa Mission, Collectorate Campus, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

4. Sub Divisional Officer At Tehsil Office, Raipur, Distt. Raipur

¶12

---- Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner : Ms. Varsha Sharma, Advocate For State : Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Dy. A.G.

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board

¶15

15.03.2021

¶16

1. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that though the petitioner was appointed as early as in the year 2008, till date the petitioner has not been granted regular pay scale which the petitioner was otherwise entitled for in accordance with the rules governing the employees under contingency establishment.

¶17

2. Taking into consideration the grievance that the petitioner has, the writ petition at this juncture stands disposed of directing the respondents 2

¶18

¶19

to 4 to take an appropriate decision as to whether the service of the petitioner falls under the contingency establishment rules and whether in the given circumstances the petitioner would be entitled for regular pay scale on completion of 3 years service in contingency establishment. Let an appropriate decision be taken at the earliest preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶20

3. The writ petition stands disposed of.

¶21

Sd/P. Sam Koshy Judge

¶22

Khatai

Uttam Prasad Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uttam Prasad Sahu 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarvan Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Ram Kumar Netam Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Subhash Chand Yadav Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

C.G. State Power Gen.Com.Ltd.Korba Vs Vishal Das and Ors.

Vibhuraj Singh Kshtri Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Pratap Singh Kurrey Vs State of Chhattisgarh