Dr. Kamlesh Kumar Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Dr. Kamlesh Kumar Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petitioner permitted to make a detailed representation before respondent No.1/competent authority (Secretary, Department of Higher Education), projecting all grievances in the writ petition with a copy of the petition, within 30 days; respondent No.1/competent authority to consider and decide it within 120 days of submission in accordance with the relevant rules and law applicable to the petitioner's case and in the light of the case of Dr. Phool Das Mahant (supra).

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner may be permitted to make a fresh representation of his grievances to the respondent/competent authority, and whether that authority may be directed to consider and decide the same within a reasonable period in accordance with the relevant rules and law applicable to the petitioner's case. +1 more

Court's answer

After considering the submissions of both parties and the record, the petition is disposed of at this stage, permitting the petitioner to make a detailed representation before respondent No.1/competent authority.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner is to project all his grievances as projected in the writ petition, along with a copy of the petition, within 30 days from today.

Key takeaways

In turn, respondent No.1/competent authority is expected to consider and decide the representation within 120 days from its submission, in accordance with the relevant rules and law applicable to the petitioner's case and in the light of the case of Dr. Phool Das Mahant (supra).ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Service) WPS No. 5840 of 2024, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, decided on 20.09.2024 by Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput: petitioner Dr. Kamlesh Kumar Mishra sought redressal of grievances which, per his counsel, fell for consideration before this Court in Writ Petition (S) No. 785 of 2015 (Dr. Phool Das Mahant Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.), wherein by order dated 22.09.2015 the Court had allowed the writ petitions and directed the State to consider petitioners/emergency appointees for grant of Senior Pay Scale/Selection Grade Pay Scale by treating services rendered from the initial date of appointment as regular appointment. Having already made representation(s) before the respondent, the petitioner sought leave to file a fresh representation, to which respondents' counsel raised no objection. Disposing of the petition without adjudicating the grievance afresh, the Court permitted the petitioner to make a detailed representation before respondent No.1/competent authority, projecting all grievances in the writ petition along with a copy of the petition within 30 days, and expected respondent No.1/competent authority to consider and decide the same within 120 days from submission, in accordance with the relevant rules and law applicable to the petitioner's case and in the light of Dr. Phool Das Mahant (supra). No monetary quantum was awarded in this order.

1 / 3

2024:CGHC:36927

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPS No. 5840 of 2024

1 - Dr. Kamlesh Kumar Mishra S/o Late Shri Onkar Nath Mishra, Aged About 60 Years R/o Govt. Naveen College, Fasterpur, Setganga, P.S.-Fasterpur, Tahsil And District-Mungeli (C.G.)

... Petitioner

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through-Its Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, P.S. And Post- Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, DistrictRaipur (C.G.)

2 - The Commissioner, Office Of Commissioner, Directorate Of Higher Education, Indravati Bhawan, P.S. And Post-Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.)

3 - The Principal, Govt. Naveen College, Fasterpur, Setganga, District-Mungeli (C.G.)

... Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate alongwith Ms. Durga Mehar, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Rishabh Bisen, Panel Lawyer

{(Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput})

Order on Board

20.09.2024

Heard.

2 / 3

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievances projected in this writ petition, fell for consideration before this Court in Writ Petition (S) No. 785 of 2015 (Dr. Phool Das Mahant Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.) and other connected matters. He further submits that this Court in case of Dr. Phool Das Mahant (supra) on 22.09.2015 and passed the following order in Paragraph 14 :-

“(14) In view of the above, all the writ petitions stand allowed. The State Government shall consider the case of all the petitioners/emergency appointees for grant of Senior Pay Scale/Selection Grade Pay Scale by treating the services rendered by them from the initial date of appointment as regular appointment for the purpose of conferring the benefit of Senior Pay Scale and Selection Grade Pay Scale. Needless to say, in view of the above order, the order impugned cannot be given effect to by the State Government of Chhattisgarh. ”

He further submits that as he has already made representation(s) before the respondent so he may be permitted to make a fresh representation to respondent/competent authority for the grievances projected in the writ petition, respondent/competent authority may be directed to consider and decide the same within the reasonable period of time in accordance with the relevant rules and law applicable to the case of petitioner and in the light of the above-stated judgment.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that he is having no objection to the limited prayer made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

Be that as it may, after considering the submissions made by the both the parties at bar and on perusal of the documents available on record, this petition is disposed of, at this stage, permitting the petitioner to make a detailed representation before the respondent No.1/competent authority

3 / 3

projecting all his grievances as projected in this writ petition along with the copy of petition within 30 days from today and in turn respondent No.1 /competent authority is expected to consider and decide the same within the period of 120 days from submission of such representation in accordance with the relevant rules and law applicable to the case of petitioner and in the light of

the case of Dr. Phool Das Mahant (supra) .

Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and

directions.

Certified Copy as per rules.

Sd/- ({Sachin Singh Rajput}) JUDGE

Abhigya.S