Dr. Anil Kumar Maini v. State Of Chhattisgarh

AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No.

of 20 1 6 Dr. Anil Kumar Maini, S/o Late Shri D.P. Maini, aged about 61 years, R/o H/2 - 130 Narmada Nagar, Police Station- Civil Line, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ---- PETITIONER

Versus

1.

State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Public Health and Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2.

The Director, Department of Health Services Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3.

Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Hospital Superintendent Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ....... RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate.

For Respondents/State : Mr. Dhiraj Wankhede, Govt. Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 1 4/0 2 /201 (1) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is working as Assistant Surgeon (Dental) and he is not being paid Senior Pay Scale & Super Time Scale for which he made several representations, which are still not decided. He relies upon Schedule 1 attached with Pay of Revision Rules, 1990, paragraph 4, column 12 in which Assistant Surgeon (Dental) is entitled for pay revision on the completion of six years. He further submits that he may be permitted to file fresh representation to the State Government for redressal of his grievances.

(2) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the order impugned with utmost circumspection. (3) Prayer appears to be fair & reasonable.

(4) Be that as it may, the petitioner is directed to make fresh representation alongwith copy of Revision of Pay Rules, 1990 to the respondents No. 1 & 2 within a period of 15 days from today, and in turn, the respondents No. 1 & 2 shall take a decision on the petitioner's representation within a further period of four weeks from the date of submissions of representation and passed reasoned or speaking order considering the representation and the Rules relied upon by the petitioner after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

(6) With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands finally disposed of.

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge D/-