Disposed

Mrs. Neetu Darro v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC12 Dec 2022WPS/8841/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of the writ petition regarding retrospective revision of pay scale benefits. It directed the petitioner to submit a detailed representation before the competent authority for expedited consideration within 90 days, referencing prior precedents.

What did the court decide?

Direction to petitioner to submit detailed representation before Respondent No. 5 for expedited consideration within 90 days.

Mrs. Neetu Darro Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶2

Order Sheet

¶3

WPS No. 8841 of 2022

¶4

Mrs. Neetu Darro Versus State of Chhattisgarh and others

¶5

12.12.2022		Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate for Petitioner.
	legible dated by the finally.	Mr. Akash Pandey, Panel Lawyer for Respondents-State. Heard. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that he has already filed and readable copy of Annexure P-1 along with covering memo 09.12.2022 available on record, hence, the default as pointed out Registry is now cured. With the consent of the parties, case is heard and disposed of Order passed separately. Signed and dated.
Pa wa n		Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶6

¶7

NAFR

¶8

HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶9

WPS No. 8841 of 2022

¶10

Mrs. Neetu Darro W/o Mr. Devendra Kumar Darro Aged About 38 Years Post Lecturer (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Thanabodi, Block Narharpur, District Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh.

¶11

------Petitioner

¶12

VERSUS

¶13

State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Education Department Mantralaya, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶14

Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶15

Director, Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶16

District Education Officer, District Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh.

¶17

Zila Panchayat Uttar Baster Kanker through Its Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, District Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh.

¶18

------- Respondents

¶19

(cause title is taken from Case Information System)

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate

¶21

For Respondent-State : Mr. Akash Pandey, Panel Lawyer

¶22

Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER

¶23

12/12/2022

¶24

Limited grievance raised in this writ petition is that though petitioner was granted benefit of revised pay scale after completion of 08 years of service but the benefit is extended prospectively from the date of passing of order Annexure P-1 dated 07.09.2018, and not from the date of entitlement as mentioned in the order Annexure P-1 itself.

¶25

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher on 18.06.2005, thereafter, petitioner participated in the recruitment proceeding for the higher post of Lecturer in which she became successful vide order dated 26.07.2010, the State Government has granted benefit to the teachers employed under Jila Panchayat or Janpad Panchayat,

¶26

¶27

benefit of revised pay scale who have completed 8 years of service as Teacher/ Lecturer, petitioner was extended benefit of revised pay scale vide order 07.09.2018 and held entitle to get the benefits of revised pay scale from the date as mentioned in the order as 18.06.2013. He further submits that entitlement of petitioner is recorded as 18.06.2013 but the monetary benefit is extended from 07.09.2018 ie., date of passing of order of revised pay scale. He contended that under the circular issued by the State Government, petitioner is also entitled for the arrears of the revised pay scale from the entitlement dated ie., 18.06.2013 till 07.09.2018. He also pointed out that similar matter came up for hearing in WPS No. 2530 of 2017 ( Mukesh Kumar Patel and another vs. State of C.G. and another ) and WPS No. 5328 of 2021 ( Avinesh Kumar Namdev and others vs. State of C.G. and others ).

¶28

Learned State counsel submits that the order Annexure P-1 is passed by Respondent No. 5 who is competent authority who extented benefit of revised pay scale to the teachers mentioned therein. He further submits that petitioner has not filed any document to show that she approached Respondent No. 5/ Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Uttar Bastar Kanker before filing this writ petition for the relief as stated in this writ petition.

¶29

At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner may be permitted to submit representation before Respondent No. 5 and direction be issued to decide the same at the earliest.

¶30

Considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, submission of learned counsel for petitioner based on Annexure P-1, by which petitioner was extended benefit of revised pay scale, also entries made in the order Annexure P-1 wherein petitioner’s name reflects at serial No. 43, he was held entitle from 18.06.2013 and as per the submission of learned counsel for

¶31

¶32

petitioner that benefit has been made prospectively ie., from the date of passing of order on 07.09.2018, I find it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition directing the petitioner to submit representation before Respondent No. 5 and further directing the Respondent No. 5 to consider and decide the claim of petitioner expeditiously.

¶33

Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of with a direction to petitioner to submit a detailed representation before the Respondent No. 5 raising all grievance as raised in this writ petition and if such a representation is submitted, Respondent No. 5/ CEO, Jila Panchayat, Uttar Bastar Kanker shall consider and decide the claim of petitioner expeditiously preferably within a further period of 90 days from the date of receipt of representation, keeping in mind the decision in the case of Mukesh Kumar Patel (supra) and Avinesh Kumar Namdev (supra).

¶34

Certified copy as per rules.

¶35

Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶36

/P a w a n

Mrs. Neetu Darro v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Neetu Darro 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

Lekhram Nirmalkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Baratu Ram Pal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Priyanka Tiwari Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Vs Smt. Joly Roy

Tirith Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nasip Kumar Banjare Vs State of Chhattisgarh