2024:CGHC:32894 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2313 of 2023

1 - Mrs. Sanjeeta Rawte W/o Mr. Birendra Kumar Rawte Aged About 44 Years Post Lecturer (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School Amakada, Block Durgukondal, District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus

1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2 - Commissioner Cum Director Panchayat, Sanchanalaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

3 - Secretary School Education Department Mantralaya, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

4 - Zila Panchayat Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, District Uttar Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For respective : Mr. AmanTamboli, Panel Lawyer and Ms. Ruchi Nagar, Respondents Advocate ({Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput})

Order on Board

28/08/2024

1. Grievance of petitioner in this writ petition is of non-grant of revised pay scale in terms of order passed by the State Government dated 17.05.2013.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Siksha Karmi Gr. III vide order dated 04.06.2005. While in service, petitioner further participated in the fresh recruitment proceedings, became successful and was appointed on the post of Siksha Karmi Gr. II on 09.07.2005. According to the order passed by the State Government, the Teachers working with the Panchayat Department are entitled for revised pay scale after completion of 08 years of service. Petitioner was not extended the benefit of revised pay scale. He further contended that as per the Circular order dated 23.04.2016 wherein the benefit of previous service was granted to the teachers who participated in fresh recruitment proceedings after obtaining permission has been discussed in case of Mukesh Kumar Patel and another vs. State of C.G. and another in WPS No. 2530 of 2017 and the teachers who during the period of their service participated in the fresh recruitment proceedings were granted benefit of past service and the case of petitioner is squarely covered with the decision in Mukesh Kumar Patel (supra). He contended that petitioner is entitled for revised pay scale upon completion of 08 years of service from the date of first appointment.

3. Learned State Counsel submits that petitioner was appointed by Respondent No. 4 and the grievance, if any, of grant of revised pay scale would be against Respondent No. 4 to whom he is not representing. He submits that petitioner has not submitted any application/ representation raising his grievance before Respondent No. 4, as appearing from the documents placed on record.

4. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner may be permitted to submit a fresh representation before Respondent No. 4 and in turn Respondent No. 4 be directed to consider and decide the representation of petitioner expeditiously within specified time.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents annexed along with writ petition.

6. Considering the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and also facts and circumstances of the case, without entering into the merits, I find it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition at this stage permitting the petitioner to submit detailed representation raising all grounds as raised in this writ petition before Respondent No. 4 and further directing Respondent No. 4 to consider and decide the same at the earliest.

7. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of permitting petitioner to submit detailed representation alongwith relevant documents before Respondent No. 4, and if such representation is submitted by the petitioner, Respondent No. 4 shall consider and decide the same expeditiously preferably within an outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of representation, in accordance with law, keeping