← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/5059/2016disposed off

Chandrashekhar Prasad Gupta v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2016-09-22Hon'Ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No.5059 of 2016 Chandrashekhar Prasad Gupta S/o Late Shri Gopal Prasad Gupta, Aged About 39 Years Occupation Assistant Teacher Panchayat, Govt. Primary School Khairbar, R/o Village Khairbar, Block & Thana Ambikapur, Revenue & Civil District Surguja, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat, Gramin Vikas Vibhag, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

2. Director, Panchayat, Sanchanalaya, Chhattisgarh Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

3. Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh

4. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Sarguja, District Sarguja, (Chhattisgarh)

5. Collector, Sarguja, District Surguja, (Chhattisgarh)

6. District Education Officer, Ambikapur, District Surguja, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Abdul Wahab Khan, Advocate For Respondent-State :

Mr. S.P. Kale, Dy. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.

Order on Board 22/09/2016 1.

Heard on admission.

2.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is working as Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) since more than 10 years, neither he hase been given Kramonnati nor he has been given Samayman Vetanman (time bound pay scale) and therefore, he may be permitted to file

representation before the competent authority for redressal of his grievance. To this, counsel for the State has no objection. 3.

Prayer appears to be fair and reasonable.

4.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off. In the eventuality of making any representation by the petitioner highlighting his grievance, the same is expected to be decided by the authority concerned expeditiously in accordance with law.

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 in accordance with law.

Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Tiwari