Amrit Lal Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 931 OF 2019 Amrit Lal Sahu S/o Late Shri Ramcharan Sahu Aged About 36 Years Working As Teacher (L. B.) At Govt. Middle School Sendari, Block Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.

...Petitioner(s)

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Atal Nagar, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Secretary Department Of School Education Atal Nagar, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Collector District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.

3. Director Panchayat Directorate Indrawati Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Mantralaya Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

4. Collector District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.

5. Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.

6. District Education Officer Sakti, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh.

7. Block Education Officer Sakti District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner :

Shri Jeet Patel, Advocate.

For Respondents-State :

Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 13.02.2019

1. The grievance of the petitioner is that while working on the post of Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) he got promoted vide order dated 25.02.2017 (Annexure P/1) on the post of Teacher (Panchayat). The petitioner immediately assumed his duties on the promoted post and discharging his duties as Teacher (Panchayat) since then, however, he is being paid the salary of Assistant Teacher (Panchayat).

2. The petitioner further submits that he had approached practically every officer in the department. The Director, Panchayat, also has vide Annexure P/4, dated 02.11.2018 instructed the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Janjgir Champa i.e. respondent No.5 to ensure that the petitioner is paid the dues that he is otherwise entitled for. Yet there

seems to be no decision taken by the respondents. Further contention of the petitioner is that, in between, for the month of September, 2017, he has not been paid any salary whatsoever.

3. Given the aforesaid facts, this court is of the opinion that the writ petition itself can be disposed of directing the respondents No.5 to 7 to ensure that within a period of 60 days time the grievance of the petitioner should be redressed and the entire arrears of payment shall also be released forthwith, failing which the arrears would carry interest @ 10 percent per annum and the said amount of interest shall be recovered equally from the respondents No.5 to 7.

4. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed off. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge inder