Lalit Kumar Baghel v. State Of Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WP(S) No. 1520 of 2020

1. Lalit Kumar Baghel S/o Late Shri Dhanajiram Baghel, Aged About 45 Years Occupation, Vyakhyata L.B., Shash. High School Nagarneda R/o Village Nagarneda Tahsil Antagarh District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh

2. Kumari Sanko Dugge D/o Shri Bansingh Dugga Aged About 47 Years Occupation, Ucch Shreni Shikshak L.B., Shash. Ucch Prathmik Shala Hindu Binapaal R/o Village Malmeta Ward No. 16 Gram Panchayat Edanar Tahsil Antagarh District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh

3. Vinod Kumar Hidko S/o Shri Pardeshiram Aged About 45 Years Occupation, Shikshak L.B. Madhyamik Shala Nawagaon R/o Village Nawagaon Tahsil Antagarh District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Shiksha Vibhag, Mantralay Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. Secretary, Panchayat, Gramin Vikash Avm Shram Vibhag, Mantralay, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh

3. Mukhya Karyapalan Adhikari Janpad Panchayat Antagarh District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh

4. District Education Officer, Kanker, District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Abdul Wahab Khan, Advocate For State :

Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 05.03.2020 Heard 1.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have filed an application that they were working prior to 1998 in the Panchayat Department and they were subsequently absorbed in Education Department. It is contended that the petitioners raised grievance that the amount was being deducted under National Pension Scheme (N.P.S.) from the salary and the N.P.S. has been implemented from 01.01.2004, whereas

the petitioners have been appointed in the year 1998; therefore, the deduction under the N.P.S. cannot be made from their salary. It is further contended that the petitioners have made an application that the deduction may not be made under the N.P.S. and they should be allowed to give privilege which was given earlier. It is further contended that the petitioners have made an application to the District Education Officer, which may be directed to be decided.

2.

At this stage, since limited prayer is made, the petitioners are given liberty to make a fresh representation redressing all the averments to the respondent No.4 within a period of 4 weeks, which shall be decided within a further period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the representation. It is observed that this Court has not made any observation on the merit of this case.

3.

With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge yasmin.Jyoti