Disposed

Chandrika Prasad Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC6 Dec 2022WPS/8403/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Bench disposed petition seeking balance arrears of revised pay scale granted with token payment. Directs petitioners to file fresh representation with respondent No. 6 and Janpad Panchayat Charama for expedited decision within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners to file fresh representation; authorities to decide expeditiously within three weeks.

Chandrika Prasad Sahu Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

-1-

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 8403 of 2022

¶5

Chandrika Prasad Sahu S/o Late Mr. Fulchand Sahu Aged About 45 Years Post Assistant Teacher Local Body, Posted At Govt. Primary School Jhipatola, Block Charama Distt.-Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.)

¶6

Pappu Ram Sinha S/o Mr. Rambharosa Sinha Aged About 45 Years Post Assistant Teacher (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Primary School Kanapod, Block Charama, Distt. Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.)

¶7

Ishwar Lal Sahu S/o Mr. Prabhu Ram Sahu Aged About 44 Years Post Teacher (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Upper Primary School, Udkuda, Block Charama, Distt.-Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.)

¶8

Yoman Kumar Jain S/o Mr. Shriram Jain Aged About 42 Years Post Assistant Teacher (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Primary School Naveen Araud, Block Charama, Distt.-Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.)

¶9

Pawan Kumar Jain S/o Late Fatte Singh Jain Aged About 41 Years Post Lecturer (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Tarasgaon, Block Charama, Distt.-Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.)

¶10

Gopi Ram Kodopi S/o Late Mr. Mangun Ram Kodopi Aged About 51 Years Post Lecturer (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Tarasgaon, Block Charama, Distt. Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.)

¶11

Mrs. Aruna Markam W/o Pappu Ram Markam Aged About 37 Years Post Lecturer (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Primary School Kanapod, Block Kanker, Distt.-Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.)

¶12

Akhilesh Ganjeer S/o Mr. Karku Ram Ganjeer Aged About 49 Years Post Lecturer (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Lendara, Block Narharpur, Distt.-Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.)

¶13

Sohan Das Manikpuri S/o Mr. Latkhor Das Manikpuri Aged About 51 Years Post Lecturer (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Girls Higher Secondary School Abhanpur, Block Narharpur, Distt. Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.)

¶14

---- Petitioners

¶15

Versus

¶16

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur Distt.-Raipur (C.G.)

¶17

Secretary Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur Distt.-Raipur (C.G.)

¶18

-2-

¶19

Director Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur Distt.-Raipur (C.G.)

¶20

District Education Officer District Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.)

¶21

Zila Panchayat Uttar Bastar Kanker Through It Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Distt.-Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.)

¶22

Janpad Panchayat Through It Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Kanker Distt.-Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.)

¶23

---- Respondents

¶24

_____________________________________________________________ For Petitioners : Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate For State : Shri Suyash Dhar Badgaiya, Panel Lawyer

¶25

S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

Order On Board

06/12/2022

Heard.

Grievance raised by petitioners in this petition is that petitioners were extended benefit of revised pay scale vide order dated 02.03.2022 and 19.03.2020 respectively but had not made payment of entire arrears of revised pay scale for which petitioners are entitled and only paid token amount to petitioners.

¶30

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that State Government issued notification for giving revised pay scale to teacher and lecturer of Panchayat Department after completion of 8 years of service. Pursuant to the notification issued by State Government, petitioners were extended benefit of revised pay scale. The order was issued on 02.03.2020 and 19.03.2020, but petitioners were held entitled for the benefit of revised pay scale from the earlier date i.e. the date on which petitioners completed

¶31

-3-

¶32

8 years of service. Respondents have also calculated the total amount for which petitioners are entitled for and have paid only Rs.2000/- as token money while issuing order extending benefit of revised pay scale. He contended that as the respondents have already considered the entitlement of petitioners from the date of completion of 8 years of their services and has also calculated the amount for which petitioners are entitled from the date when they became eligible for revised pay scale till the date of passing of order. Respondent be directed to release the balance amount of arrears of revised pay scale.

¶33

Learned counsel for State would submit that order granting revised pay scale is issued by Janpad Panchayat Kanker and Janpad Panchayat Charama to whom he is not representing.

¶34

I have heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record.

¶35

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners and also the contents of Annexure P-1 filed by petitioners wherein respondents have ordered for grant of revised pay scale and also calculated the period and arrears of amount towards the revised pay scale for which petitioners are entitled but have paid only small token amount. The order is of the year 2020 and as of now more than two years have already been elapsed, this petition is disposed off directing the petitioners to submit fresh representation before respondent No.6 and also before Janpad Panchayat, Charama and if such representation is submitted, the concerned authorities are directed to consider and decide the same expeditiously

¶36

-4-

¶37

preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of representation keeping in mind the decision rendered by this Court in case of Avinesh Kumar Namdev & Ors. Vs. State of C.G. in W.P.(S) No. 5328 of 2021.

¶38

Accordingly, this petition is disposed off with the aforesaid observations and directions.

¶39

Certified copy as per rules.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶42

Balram

Chandrika Prasad Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrika 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Patle Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sanjay Kumar Joshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Anita Sahu Vs Chief General Manager

Harish Chandra Jadhaw Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Krishan Kumar Jhlariya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dayaram Suryvanshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh