Disposed¶24

Smt.dev Kumari Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC18 Jul 2024WPS/1003/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revised pay scale; Shiksha Karmi Grade-III / Grade-II teacher; completion of 8 years' service; Circular dated 17.05.2013; Panchayat teacher pay benefit; no prior representation made; liberty to file representation before Joint Secretary (P&RD) and CEO Zila Panchayat within 30 days; decision preferably within 90 days; reliance on Mukesh Kumar Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh, WPS No. 2530 of 2017 (28.11.2017); Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; Balodabazar / Bilaigarh; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to the petitioner to make a representation before Respondents No. 2 & 3 within 30 days; the authorities to decide her claim strictly in accordance with law, keeping in mind the order in WPS No. 2530 of 2017 dated 28.11.2017, preferably within 90 days. ¶24

Smt.dev Kumari Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. — Chhattisgarh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, a Shiksha Karmi teacher, is entitled to the benefit of revised pay scale on completion of 8 years of service in light of the Circular dated 17.05.2013.

¶18

Court's answer

The petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to make a representation before Respondents No. 2 & 3 within a period of 30 days.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

Respondents No. 2 & 3 shall decide the petitioner's claim strictly in accordance with law, keeping in mind the order passed in WPS No. 2530 of 2017 dated 28.11.2017 (Mukesh Kumar Patel).

¶24

Key takeaways

The authority concerned is expected to decide the representation preferably within a period of 90 days.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WPS No. 1003 of 2014 (High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur; Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.; decided 19.07.2024) - Smt. Dev Kumari Sahu, a Shiksha Karmi teacher (presently Grade-II), claimed the benefit of revised pay scale on completion of 8 years of service in light of Circular dated 17.05.2013, relying on the Co-ordinate Bench decision in Mukesh Kumar Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh, WPS No. 2530 of 2017 (decided 28.11.2017), where similarly situated employees were found entitled to such benefit. The State pointed out that, unlike the petitioners in that case (whose representations were rejected on 23.04.2016), the present petitioner had made no representation before the authorities. Disposing of the petition, the Court reserved liberty to the petitioner to make a representation before Respondents No. 2 & 3 (Joint Secretary, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, and CEO, Zila Panchayat, Raipur) within 30 days, to be decided strictly in accordance with law keeping in mind the order in WPS No. 2530 of 2017 dated 28.11.2017, preferably within 90 days.

¶1

-1-

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 1003 of 2014

¶5

Smt.Dev Kumari Sahu W/o Shri Paras Nath Sahu, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village And Post Sakrapali, Tahsil And P.S. Bilaigarh, Distt. Balodabazar, C.G. Posted As Teacher Panchayat, Siksha Karmi Grade – II, Government Middle School, Mohtara, Distt. Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Its Secretary Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

2. Joint Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Distt. Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

4. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bilaigarh, Distt. BalodabazarBhatapara District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

---- Respondents

¶13

(Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)

¶14

For Petitioner : Ms. Jainab Vanak, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate

¶15

For State : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Deputy Government Advocate

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶17

19.07.2024

¶18

1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, who was appointed to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III vide order dated 18.05.2005, is claiming for a revised pay scale on completion of 8 years of service in the light of the Circular dated 17.05.2013. She further submitted that in the case of Mukesh Kumar Patel and another v. State of Chhattisgarh and

¶19

-2-

¶20

another passed in WPS No. 2530 of 2017 and another connected matter on 28.11.2017, a similar issue has been dealt with, wherein, the similarly situated petitioners/employees were found entitled to get the benefit of the revised pay scale after the completion of 8 years of service. She lastly submitted that the instant petition may be disposed of in terms of the order passed in Mukesh Kumar Patel (supra) .

¶21

1. On the other hand, the learned State counsel submitted that in the matter of Mukesh Kumar Patel (supra), representations were made by the petitioners and after rejection of the same; they preferred writ petitions before this Court. He further submitted that in the present case, the petitioner has not made any representation before the authorities concerned. He lastly submitted that the authorities concerned have to scrutinize and verify the claim of the petitioner and after that, any decision would be taken.

¶22

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

¶23

1. In the matter of Mukesh Kumar Patel (supra) , while dealing with a similar issue the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that the teachers shall be entitled to obtain the benefit of a revised pay scale on completion of 8 years of service by including the services rendered by them on a same or the lower post, but in those petitions, the petitioners made representations before the authorities concerned, and the same was rejected on 23.04.2016, thereafter, they preferred writ petitions.

¶24

1. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, this petition, at this juncture, is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to make a representation before respondents No. 2 & 3 within a period of 30 days, who in turn, shall decide the claim of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law keeping in mind

¶25

-3-

¶26

the order passed in WPS No. 2530 of 2017 dated 28.11.2017 in Mukesh Kumar Patel (supra) .

¶27