Shailesh Kumar Dixit v. State And ORS.

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 4251 OF 2005 Shailesh Kumar Dixit, age 36 years, S/o Shri Sitaram Dixit, Hostel Caretaker, Government Polytechnic, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Janshakti Niyojan Vibhag, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2.

Director, Directorate of Technical Education, Bairon Bazar, Raipur (C.G.) 3.

Principal, Government Polytechnic, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Rakesh Anthony, Advocate.

For Respondent-State.

:

Mr. Bhupendra Singh, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 17/09/2015 1.

The Petitioner in the present Writ Petition has claimed for a relief of pay-scale of Rs. 1400-2340 which was later revised to Rs. 45007000 with effect from the date of regular appointment i.e. in the year 1990.

2.

Pending the present Writ Petition, the Respondents have granted some relief to the Petitioner inasmuch as they have granted regular pay-scale of Rs. 1450-2340 with effect from 1.1.1996 and subsequently on revision, the Petitioner is getting pay-scale of Rs.4000-6000. 3.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that now the dispute only remains to the extent of the Petitioner's claim from 1990 (i.e. the date on which he has been granted regular appointment) till 31.12.1995 which has not been considered by the Respondents.

-24.

Learned Counsel for the State at this juncture submits that since the State Government has substantially given relief to the Petitioner and if for any reason the Petitioner still intends to claim for the period 199095, let the Petitioner make a fresh representation giving details in respect of his claim along with supportive document and on such a representation, the State authorities shall consider the case of the Petitioner in accordance with the rules governing the service conditions of the Petitioner and shall decide the same expeditiously. 5.

Agreeing on the said submissions made by the learned State Counsel, the Counsel appearing for the Petitioner does not intend to contest the writ petition at this juncture any further and prays for the disposal of the writ petition with a direction and liberty to the Petitioner to approach the authorities by filing a fresh representation so far as his claim for the period 1990-95 is concerned.

6.

In view of above, the present Writ Petition is disposed of with liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Respondent authorities by filing fresh representation so far as his claim for the period 1990-95 is concerned. In the event, if the the Petitioner files a representation within a period of four weeks from today, the Respondent authorities shall ensure a decision on the said representation positively within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the said representation of the Petitioner.

7.

With the aforesaid observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge /sharad/