Disposed

H. K. Chandrakar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC8 Dec 2024WPS/3207/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Revenue Officer sought pay fixation per a 1994 SADA order appointing him Property Tax Officer. The court directed respondent corporations to verify facts and pass an appropriate order on his claim within three months.

What did the court decide?

Respondent-Corporation directed to verify facts against order dated 04.04.1994 and pass appropriate order on petitioner's salary claim within three months.

H. K. Chandrakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 3

2024:CGHC:48406

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 3207 of 2024

¶6

H. K. Chandrakar S/o Late Shri M.L. Chandrakar Aged About 62 Years Working As Revenue Officer, At Municipal Corporation, Chirmiri, District - Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.)

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

2. Director Urban Administration And Development Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Fourth Floor, D- Block, New Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

3. Municipal Corporation Bhilai Through Its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bhilai, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

4. Municipal Corporation Chirmiri, Through Its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Chirmiri, District - Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner	: Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, Advocate
For State	: Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, P.L.
For Respondent No. 3	: Ms. Juhi Anguriya, Advocate on behalf of Mr. R.K. Kesharwani, Advocate
For Respondent No. 4	: Dr. SudeepAgrawal, Advocate

¶15

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board

¶16

09/12/2024

¶17

Heard.

¶18

1. The case of the petitioner is that in the erstwhile Special Area Development Authority (In short "SADA"), Bhilai-Durg, the petitioner was duly appointed as Assistant Estate Officer vide order dated

¶19

2 / 3

¶20

19.06.1985 by the then Chairman of SADA. However, after dissolution of SADA, its assets and liabilities were transferred to Municipal Corporation, Bhilai along with staff including the petitioner. The respondent- Corporation is not granting the pay scale, which is admissible to the petitioner vide order dated 04.04.1994. It is submitted that this issue has been raised before the Municipal Corporation, but the same is not being decided and the petitioner is being paid wages of Revenue Officer, on which post, he did not continue after 04.04.1994 and promoted to the post of Property Tax Officer.

¶21

2. It is submitted that after order dated 04.04.1994, two employees namely Parmeshwar Chandrakar and Vinod Kumar Chandrakar, who were promoted as Revenue Inspector, but not given that status and salary by the Corporation and their services were transferred to Corporation, against which, they preferred writ petition before this Court (Parmeshwar Chandrakar & Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, W.P.No.5891 of 1998) , which was disposed off vide order dated 28-02-2013 by this Court and it has been held that in view of the order passed by the Chairman on 04.04.1994 appointing that two persons as Revenue Inspector, they are entitled to appropriate salary payable to the post of Revenue Inspector. It is submitted that vide order dated 04.04.1994, the petitioner was also appointed as Property Tax Officer, therefore, in the case of the petitioner also, similar relief may be granted.

¶22

3. Learned counsel appearing for respective respondents submit that in order to grant similar relief, it will require verification of facts applicable to the case of the petitioner and orders passed from time to time and the petitioner's status.

¶23

3 / 3

¶24

4. From the submission of learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the case of the petitioner needs proper consideration on similar lines as order passed by this Court in the case of Parmeshwar Chandrakar (supra).

¶25

5. Accordingly, the respondent-Corporation is directed to verify necessary facts, in the light of order dated 04.04.1994 passed by the SADA, Bhilai-Durg and pass appropriate order on the petitioner's claim for grant of salary of the post of Property Tax Officer. The decision may be taken within a period of three months.

¶26

6. With the aforesaid observation, this petition is finally disposed of .

¶27

Sd/Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE

H. K. Chandrakar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H. K. Chandrakar 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

Shriram Deshpandey Vs The Secretary

Suresh Kumar Markam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Krishna Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anup Kumar Garhe Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Shanta Rangare Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shailesh Kumar Jain Vs State of Chhattisgarh