Allowed

Smt. Babita Joshi v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC7 Aug 2024WPS/1000/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A rural health officer was denied time bound pay scale benefits despite over 21 years of service because her service book was never updated due to official negligence. The State admitted the lapse. The court directed payment of all dues within 45 days, failing which interest at 6% per annum would apply, and permitted recovery from negligent officials after hearing.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pay entire dues with consequential benefits including increments within 45 days, else 6% per annum interest from entitlement date.

Smt. Babita Joshi Vs State Of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 3

2024:CGHC:29974

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 1000 of 2016

¶6

Smt. Babita Joshi W/o Shree Prakash Joshi, Aged About 50 Years Rural Health Officer, Sub Health Centre, Mohda, Sector Bindra Nawagarh, Community Health Centre, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Health Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶10

Chief Medical and Health Officer, Gariyaband, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

Block Medical Officer, Block Office Gariyaband, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

Chief Medical and Health Officer, Raipur, District : Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr. Akshat Agrawal, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate.

¶15

For Respondent/State : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Govt. Advocate.

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

¶17

Order On Board

¶18

08/08/2024

¶19

(a) Case of the petitioner is that she was appointed on 18.11.1992 and

¶20

Digitally signed by K GOWRI K GOWRI SANKARA SANKARA RAO RAO Date: 2024.08.09 16:45:25 +0530

¶21

her junior namely; Smt. Sapna Ganvir was appointed on 27.11.1992. They posted in Sub Health Centre Mohda, Darripara. According to the petitioner, in the month of September, 2024 her basic pay was fixed at Rs.7,070/- and salary of Smt. Sapna Ganvir was fixed at Rs. 11,450/-. Their net pay is Rs. 17,588/- & Rs.27,908/- respectively.

¶22

2 / 3

¶23

(b) Further case of the petitioner is that she has not been given the benefit of time bound pay scale despite the fact that she has completed more than 21 years of service. Therefore, she moved an application 10.09.2014 vide Annexure P-1 raising her grievances. From the salary statement of the petitioner and her junior, it is manifest that there is a difference in calculation of salary. Thereafter, several reminders submitted by the petitioner and also running from pillar to post to redress her grievance but all turned to be futile and eventually at the end of the day no increment was sanctioned to the petitioner. Albeit the internal correspondences were carried out in between the respondent official inter se but all of them proved to be porous did not yield any result.

¶24

Reply has been filed on behalf of the State wherein they admitted the fact that the petitioner joined the service on 18.11.1992 and the benefit of time bound pay scale on completion of 12 years and 20 years of service has not been extended in favour of the petitioner, though her junior Smt. Sapna Ganvir was appointed on 27.11.1992, she was given the benefits. From the reply of the State, it is clear that due to negligence on the part of the then Block Medical Officer and the concerned Clerk, the service book of the petitioner was not updated and the service benefits have not been provided to the petitioner since 2003. The State fairly admitted in its reply that necessary entries will be made in the service book of the petitioner.

¶25

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents.

¶26

The grievance, which is raised by the petitioner, appears to be reasonable and genuine. The time bound pay scale and other benefits cannot be on

¶27

3 / 3

¶28

the mercy of the higher officers or concerned clerk. It is the right of a Government servant, which he/she earned as per Rules of the State. In the return, the State fairly admitted the fact that due to some mistake and negligence on the part of the concerned officers/clerk, the service benefits could not be extended to the petitioner.

¶29

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the respondent authorities are directed to carry out necessary exercise within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and shall pay the entire dues to the petitioner along with other consequential benefits accrued in her favour including the increment. For non-payment of dues within time, the respondents are also directed to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum, on the said dues, from the date of her entitlement till the date of actual payment to increase trust in the system. Thereafter, the State would be at liberty to conduct necessary enquiry and if it is found that the negligence was lack of bona fide , the said amount shall be recovered from the concerned officer/clerk, after affording due opportunity of hearing.

¶30

As a sequel, the writ petition is allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s).

¶31

(Goutam Bhaduri) Judge

¶32

Gowri/RD

Smt. Babita Joshi v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Babita Joshi 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

Sadanand Rajak Vs The Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited

Rajeshwar Singh Rathore Vs The Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited

Dr. Smt. Harsh Tiwari Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt.anita Sharma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Kuber Charan Ratre Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Hemlata Goswami Vs State Of Chhattisgarh