Rajesh Kumar Nigam v. State And ORS.

$ BEFGRE THE HON'BLE 8TATE AEMiNi-i'ETRATIVE TRIBUNAL BENCH AT RAIF'UR (f4? )j/J) > "N /;'L/V5K2i1 g, Q , A. NO:

/2001 Rajesh Kumar Nigam, S/o : Shri Anamiilal Nigam, Aged About 34 years, Working as Time Keeper (Sthal Sahayak) Public Wcrks Department, Raipur Divisicn, National Highway Sub Division. Raipur.

APPLICANT Veraus 1.

$tate of MP.

Thrcugh: Secretaiy, Pubiic Weiks Department, Valiabh Bhavan, Bhopal.

Q6 o 2.

State of Chhattisgarh,~ Through: Secretary, Public Works Department, D.K. Bhavan, Raipur (CG) 3.

Chief Engineer.

Public Works Department Raipur Division, Near Akashwani, Raipur (QG) RESPONDENTS.

ADP! lCATlON HIE 1Q OF THF ADMlNlSTRATIVF TRIRUNAI ACT

o\© NAFR HIQH COURT OF QHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPs No. 3738 of 2m;

- Sushil Kumar Tiwari ---- Petitioner

Versus

State And Ors.

---- Respondent And WPS Ng. 3739 Of 2005 Rajesh Kumar Nigam ---- Petitioner Vs State And Ors.

---- Respondent For Petitioners V Shri N. K. Vyas, Advocate For Respondent/State Shri Ye S. Thakur, Dye AG M Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Boa rd 08/04/201 6 1'

In these two writ petitions, the petitioners were appointed as Time Keeper in the Department of Public Works. They are claiming benefit of pay scale of Rs.950-1530/- and Hthecorresponding pay scale in the subsequent pay revision instead of pay scale of Rs.825'1220/~, which is claimed to be wrongly granted to them.

i l l l '

.

l l l;

i i l l l

0\\ 2.

It is contended 'that the petitioners are entitled to benefit of' the judgment rendered by the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal in the matter of Laxmi Narayan Upadhyay v. State of M.P. and another'.

3.

Learned State counsel would submit that the petitioners' case is not similar to the case of Laxmi Narayan Upadhyay (supra) and some other writ petitions filed before this Court have been disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioners to file representation, therefore, in the present case also, the petitioners may submit representation, which shall be dealt with in accordance with law. 4r ln view of the above, both the writ petitions are disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioners to move representation before the competent authority within a period of one month and thereafter the competent authority shall decide the representation within a further period of 3 months.

l""

Sdb '

'

JUDGE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Nirala (I) MPLSR 267