Deoyani Katakwar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 1161 of 2020 • Deoyani Katakwar W/o Vivek Kumar Katakwar Aged About 32 Years Working As Lecturer (L.B.) Government Higher Secondary School, Singarpur, Block Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapata Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. Secretary Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh

3. Commissioner-Cum-Director Directorate Of Panchayat, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

4. Chief Executive Officer Jila Panchayat, Baloda Bazar, Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh --Respondents For Petitioners :

Shri Harish Khuntiya, Advocate For Respondents/State :

Shri Kunal Das, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 24-02-2020 1.

The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner though was appointed on 20.06.2005 and has completed 8 years of service but he has not been granted revised pay scale. He further submits that likewise issue has already been decided in WPS No. 8459 of 2019 and prays similar order may be passed herein also. He refer to Anenxure P-4, copy of the order passed in WPS No. 8459 of 2019.This Court in WPS No. 8459 of 2019 on 16.10.2019 has passed the following orders:- "1. Since the issue involved in these two writ petitions is same, both these petitions are being heard and decided by this common order at the motion stage.

2. The limited grievance which the petitioners have raised in these present writ petitions by virtue of order passed by this Court in the case of Mukesh Kumar Patel Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, WPS No. 2530/2017 decided on 26.11.2017 have been granted

benefit of revised pay scale on completion of 8 years of service.

3. learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the grievance which now remains is that the benefit is being provided to the petitioner prospectively and though the respondents have made a calculation which the petitioners were entitled from the date of their completion of 8 years of service but no effective orders have been passed nor the department has taken any steps for release of the arrears of payment. The petitioner prays for appropriate direction to the respondents for releasing the said amount.

4. Without entering into the merits of the case and taking into consideration the judgment of this Court in the case of Mukesh Patel(Supra) which has also been affirmed by the Division Bench and taking note of the fact that respondents have complied with the order to the extent of granting revised pay scale to the petitioner, let respondents No. 2 & 3 take an appropriate decision at the earliest so far as release of the arrears of payment which the petitioners are entitled for. Expecting a decision from the respondents within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order the present writ petition stands disposed off."

2. Learned State counsel do not dispute the fact that similar order has been passed.

3. In view of the above submission, the ratio laid down in the judgment supra shall also be applicable in the case of the petitioner.

4. With the aforesaid observation the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Goutam Bhaduri Judge Jyoti