Ishwar Prasad Pathak v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 4065 of 2016 • Ishwar Prasad Pathak S/o Shri Khuman Prasad Pathak, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village & Post Lofandi (Koni), District Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh).

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Tribal Development Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh).

2. Commissioner, Tribal Development Department, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh).

3. Commissioner, Office Of Commissioner, Bilaspur Division Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh).

4. Collector, Office Of Collector, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh).

5. Additional Collector/ C E O, District Panchayat Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh).

6. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Department, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh).

---- Respondents For Petitioner Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate For State Ms. Tripti Rao, Panel Lawyer SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice P.Sam Koshy Order On Board 22.06.2017

1. Heard.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is working on the post of Cook on monthly basis at collector rate in Hostel/ Ashram and he is entitled for grant of pay scale as per circular dated 04th November, 2016 issued by respondent No.1/State

Government and therefore, he may be permitted to file representation before respondent No. 4 i.e. Collector, Bilaspur for redressal of his grievance and direction may be issued to the said authority to decide the same expeditiously.

3. Prayer appears to be fair and reasonable.

4. In view of above, the petitioner are permitted to file representation before respondent No.4 i.e. Collector, Bilaspur. If such representation is made by the petitioner within 15 days from today, respondent No. 4 shall consider and decide the case of the Petitioner in the light of circular dated 04th November, 2016 preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order along with representations of the petitioner.

5. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and authority concerned would be at liberty to decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law.

6. With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands finally disposed of. No order as to cost(s).

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) JUDGE kishore