Anoop Kumar Dhagat Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Anoop Kumar Dhagat Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petitioner directed to submit a fresh representation before respondents No. 1 & 2; respondents No. 1 & 2 directed to consider and decide it in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order passed by this Court.

Issue for consideration

Whether petitioner, having completed 10 years of service, was entitled to and should be granted the benefit of time scale pay as per the circular/notification issued by the State Government. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Considering the facts and circumstances and the nature of the claim, instead of keeping the writ petition pending and seeking a reply from respondents, the Court disposed of the petition, leaving the entitlement to time scale pay to be worked out through a fresh representation.

Key takeaways

Respondents No. 1 & 2 were directed to consider and decide the fresh representation in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order passed by this Court.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur — WPS No. 6213 of 2024 — Parth Prateem Sahu, J. — Order dated 03/10/2024. Service matter (pay benefits). Petitioner, initially appointed Junior Sericulture Inspector on 10.05.1983, appointed to cadre on 23.09.2008, regularized as Field Officer on 01.01.2012 and retired on superannuation on 30.06.2020, claimed the benefit of time scale pay on completion of 10 years' service (stated to have been completed in 2018), citing a circular/notification issued by the State Government; his representations, the last dated 16.04.2024 (Annexure P-5) to respondent No. 1, were not considered or decided. Without keeping the writ petition pending or seeking a reply from respondents, the Court disposed of the petition, directing the petitioner to submit a fresh representation before respondents No. 1 & 2, and directing respondents No. 1 & 2 to consider and decide it in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within four months from receipt of a copy of the Court's order. The entitlement claim itself was not adjudicated. No statute or precedent was cited in the judgment.

1 / 2

2024:CGHC:39002

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPS No. 6213 of 202 4

Anoop Kumar Dhagat S/o. Narayan Shankar Dhagat Aged About 66 Years Residence Of C-62, Swarn Jayanti Nagar, Ring Road No. 2, Bilaspur (C.G.)

... Petitioner

versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through, Directorate Of Rural Industries (Sericulture Sector), Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Dist. Raipur (C.G.)

Deputy Director Of Silk Circuit House Road, Near Urdna Naka, Raigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.)

Joint Director Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.)

	... Respondents
For Petitioner	: Mr. Naveen Nirala, Advocate
For Respondents/ State	: Ms. Anuja Sharma, Panel Lawyer

Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

ORDER ON BOARD

03/10/2024

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Junior Sericulture Inspector on 10.05.1983. Thereafter he was appointed to cadre on 23.09.2008 and he was regularized on the post of Field Officer on 01.01.2012. After attaining the age of superannuation, he stood retired from service on 30.06.2020. According to circular/notification issued by State Government, petitioner is entitled for time scale pay after completion of 10 years of service. Petitioner completed 10 years of service in the

Digitally signed by PAWAN year 2018 but the benefit of time scale pay was not given to him. KUMAR JHA Date: 2024.10.04 10:35:21 Aggrieved by inaction on the part of respondents, petitioner submitted +0530

2 / 2

representation, lastly on 16.04.2024 before respondent No.1 however, till date representation submitted by petitioner is not considered and decided.

Learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner. However, she submits that if representation (Annexure P-5) dated 16.04.2024 placed on record is not yet decided, it will be considered and decided in accordance with law. She however, submits that as representation submitted by petitioner is about six months old, petitioner may submit fresh representation.

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

Petitioner along with writ petition has filed order of attaining the age of superannuation and retirement of petitioner on 30.06.2020. The grievance of petitioner is that petitioner was not extended benefit of time scale pay.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of claim, instead of keeping this writ petition pending and seeking reply from respondents, it is disposed off, directing petitioner to submit fresh representation before respondents No. 1 & 2 and if such representation is submitted, respondents No. 1 & 2 shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of order passed by this Court.

Sd/-

(Parth Prateem Sahu) JUDGE

pwn