Dr. Anil Kumar Shrivastava v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No.3703 of 2009
1. Dr. Anil Kumar Shrivastava, S/o Shri K.K. Shrivastava, aged about 48 years, R/o Primary Health Centre, Ratanpur, Tehsil Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
2. Dr. Satish Kumar Shrivastava (deleted)
3. Dr. Amal Kumar Jha, S/o Shri B. Jha, aged about 50 years, R/o Community Health Centre, Kargi Road, Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
4. Dr. Anand Murthy, S/o Late Shri Ram Das Shrivastava, aged about 50 years, R/o Civil Hospital, Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.) ---- Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Health & Family Welfare, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.)
2. Director, Health Services, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) ---- Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioners:
Mr. Amit Soni, Advocate.
For Respondents/State: Mr. Avinash Singh, Panel Lawyer. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 30/06/2021
1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken-up through video conferencing.
2. The petitioners preferred W.P.(S)No.6403/2008 claiming that their representation for grant of senior pay scale has not been considered and decided, which this Court on 18-11-2008 directed to consider the case of the petitioners for grant of senior pay scale. The State Government by order dated 15-5-2009 considered the representation of the petitioners and rejected the same holding that the petitioners have been given the benefit of senior pay scale with effect from 1-1-
2006 and as such, they are not entitled for the benefit of time bound pay scale against which this writ petition has been preferred.
3. Mr. Amit Soni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would submit that though the representation of the petitioners has been rejected by order dated 15-5-2009, but no reason has been assigned why the petitioners have not been given the benefit of senior pay scale with effect from March, 1994 and by an unreasoned and non-speaking order, their representation has been rejected.
4. Mr. Avinash Singh, learned State counsel would support the impugned order.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their submissions made herein-above and also went through the material available on record with utmost circumspection.
6. This Court directed to consider the case of the petitioners for grant of senior pay scale which the State Government considered and held that they have been given the benefit from 1-1-2006. Case of the petitioners is that they are entitled for the said benefit because of their completion of service of six years and as such they are entitled for senior pay scale with effect from March, 1994. Paragraph 2 of the impugned order states as under: - 2/ पपप्अभ्पवदन्कप्नन्मe/ननदरशe्कव्पररिपव्रे््म्अवललोकन्कि्समग्रप सव्पिरीक्नक्प्ग्प्तथप्नदनपनक्30.04.2009्कलो््पनचकपकतप्तन्कप्समी म्सनप्ग्प् ।््उनकव्दपिप्मसख्तत्ननिन्दलो्न बदस्उठप्व्ग्वत1. वररिष्ठ्वतनमपन्हम्18्वर््कव् पद्नद्प्ग्प्ज नक्उसर्आदवश्म्हमसव कननष्ठ्नचनकत्सकe्कलो्कववल्7्वर््म्वररिष्ठ्वतनमपन्नद्प्ग्प । 2.
16्वर््कक्सववप्कव्पशपतचा्तर्हम्टपाम्सकवल्नहह्नमलप्ह् । उपिलोक्त्न बदस्कमपनक्1्कव्सन नबं्म्ससथनत्इस्पकपि्हत-्नवतपग्म्नचनकत्सक सनवग््कव्ललए्पिव््सव्हर्मध््पदवश्वतन्पसनिरीक्नन्म्1990्कक्अलबंसपिचनप
नदनपनक्04 ्फिविर्1990 ्कव्अनतग्त्नतसतिर््वतनमपन्लपगपि्ह् ।््लजसम सहप्क्शल््नचनकत्सक्(नचनकत्सप्अलबंकपिर)्कलो्6्वर््कक्सववप्पिक््हलोनव्पि सवरकक्त्पदe्कप्25्पनतशत्कक्सरमप्म्वररिष्ठ्वतनमपन्तथप्वररिष्ठ्शररवकर्म्4 वर््कक्सववप्हलोनव्पि्पदe्कप्15्पनतशत्सरमप्म्पवि्शररवकर्वतनमपन्नद्व्जपनव कप्पपवबंपन्ह,्लजसकव्तहतचा्आ्सक्त,्सवपसथ्््एवन्पररिवपि्कल्पक्छततरसगय िप्पसि्कव्आदवश्कमपनक्एफ्1-110/नवज्ञप/781,्नदनपनक्23्अगसत्2008 कव्सिल्कमपनक्कमशत्31, ्26, ्36, ्24 ्एवन्57 ्पि्दशप््व्अनससपि अभ्पवदनकतप््नचनकत्सकe्कलो्नन्मe्कव्पपवबंपन्तथप्पद्उपल्बंतप्हलोनव्पि पपततप्अनससपि्नदनपनक्01.01.2006्सव्वररिष्ठ्वतनमपन्कप्लपत्नद्प्ग्प्ह् । आदवश्जपिर्हलोनव्कव्नदनपनक्तक्पद्उपल बं्थव्इसललए्इसर्आदवश्म्इनसव कननष्ठ्नचनकत्सकलो्कपव्तर्उनकक्पपततप्अनससपि्नदनपनक01.01.2008्सव्वररिष्ठ वतनमपन्कप्लपत्नद्प्ग्प्ह् । न बदस्2 ्कव्सन नबं्म्ससथनत्इस्पकपि्हत-्नवत्नवतपग्कव्पररिपत्नदनपनक 28.04.2008्कव्दपिप्जपिर्सम्मपन्वतन््लोजनप्अथवप्इसकव्पपवबंपन्उक्त पररिपत्कक्कननडकप्02्कव्पररिपव्रे््म्सवपसथ्््एवन्पररिवपि्कल्पक्नवतपग्कव अनतग्त्नचनकत्सक्सनवग््कव्ललए्पिव््सव्पचललत्नतसतिर््वतनमपन्लपगपि्हलोनव्कव कपिक्पपवबंपननत्नहह्ह् ।
7. A careful perusal of the impugned order would show that the State Government has simply said that in accordance with the rules and unavailability of posts, the benefit of senior pay scale has been given from 1-1-2006, but no specific reason has been assigned why the petitioners were not given the benefit from March, 1994 and why from 1-1-2006 it has been given.
8. Therefore, the impugned order by which the petitioner's representation has been rejected holding that they are entitled for the benefit of senior pay scale from 1-1-2006 and not from earlier date, is partly set aside. Fresh order shall be passed after considering the case of the petitioners and hearing them, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioners are also at liberty to make additional representation within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order qua the other reliefs which have been claimed
in this writ petition and which shall also be considered by the respondents / State within two months from the date of representation. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.
9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands finally disposed of. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Soma