Sudhir Kumar Shrivahatava v. Chhattisgarh Power Generation Company Limited
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 6466 of 2017 • Sudhir Kumar Shrivahatava S/o Shri Siyaram Shrivashtava Aged About 53 Years R/o OB 22 Near S R Club A B Type C S E B Colony Korba, East Korba Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Chhattisgarh Power Generation Company Limited Through Its Chief Engineer (Generation) Korba Tharmal Power Station, Korba East Korba Chhattisgarh
2. Chief Engineer (HR), Chhattisgarh Power Generation Company Danganiya, Raipur Chhattisgarh
3. Superintending Engineer (HR), Korba Thermal Power Station Chhattisgarh Korba East Korba Chhattisgarh
4. Executive Director Chhattisgarh Power Generation Company Limited, Marwa Tendubhata Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Petitioners Shri Faisal Akhtar, Advocate.
For Respondents None Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 28/11/2017
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not been accorded benefit of pay under FR22A (1), even though the said benefit has been extended to similarly placed employees working in the Chhattisgarh
Power Generation Company Ltd, the petitioner is thus deprived of one increment of Rs. 340/-. He would draw attention of the Court to the pay fixation slip of one Shri Jitendra Nath Sikdar, Junior Engineer vide Annexure P-12.
2. Considering the limited issue involved in the writ petition relating to payment of one increment of Rs. 340/-, instead of keeping this petition pending, ends of justice would be served, if the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in the event, petitioner prefers representation before the competent authority claiming benefit of increment under FR22A (1), as has been extended to similarly placed employees Shri Jitendra Nath Sikdar and Shri K.D. Diwan, within a period of 4 weeks from today, the competent authority shall decide the representation by speaking order, at the earliest, preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of submission of the representation.
3. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- Judge Prashant Kumar Mishra Akhilesh