Birjhu Ram Agrawani v. The State Of Chhattisgarh.

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 622 of 2018 Birjhu Ram Agrawani S/o Adhin Ram Agrawani Aged About 37 Years By Occupation Lecturer Panchayat Government H. S. Kuralthemli, Block Narharpur District Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

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

2. Commissioner Cum Director Panchayat Sanchanalaya Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat District U . B. Kanker Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ....Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For State :

Mr. Dhiraj Wankhede, G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 17.01.2018 Heard.

1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed under the provisions of Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules of 2007 without there being any requirement of passing B.Ed / D.Ed exam. He was confirmed and granted regular pay scale also. 2.

Challenge is laid to the action of the respondents based on circulars dated 10/06/2016 and 08/03/2017 which according to the petitioner, seeks to withdraw the monetary benefits like regular pay scale, annual increment and revised pay scale on the ground of not obtaining B.Ed degree.

According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the issue raised by the petitioner was considered in batch of petitions i.e. WPS No.4271/2017 (Jayant Kumar Patle vs. State of

Chhattisgarh and ors.) and other cases by this Court vide order 03/11/2017. Therefore, the petitioner be also granted similar relief.

3.

Learned State counsel would submit that the Court considered cases of teachers in different categories enumerated in para 6 of the said order. The petitioner being an appointee under the Rules of 2007 would require consideration in terms of the direction contained in para 46 of the said order.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is already getting regular pay scale and increments also and the consideration would be confined to grant of revised pay scale.

5.

The petitioner's case for grant of revised pay scale will have to be considered in terms of the order passed by this Court in the case of Jayant Kumar Patle (supra), in so far as other claim for grant of revised pay scale is concerned. 6.

With the aforesaid observations, this petition is finally disposed off. Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Rekha