Sukdeo Prasad Patel v. State Of Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 3147 of 2019 • Sukdeo Prasad Patel S/o Shri Shankar Prasad Patel Aged About 64 Years Retired Head Master, At Govt. Primary School, Mauharhorha, Block Sarangarh, District Raigarh R/o Village Beltikri, Block and Tahsil Sarangarh, and District Raighar (C.G.) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanandi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. Director Directorate Of Chhattisgarh Public Instruction Indravati Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

3. District Education Officer Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

4. Block Education Officer Sarangarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri R.S. Patel, Advocate For Respondents/State :

Shri Ravish Verma, GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 10/02/20

1. Heard.

2. The petitioner contends that he was initially appointed on 01.11.1973 as Up Shala Shikshak. Subsequently, on completing his tenure of time he was granted Rs.150/- per month stipend from 1979 to 1983. Thereafter, he was given a salary of Rs.300/- per month from 30.06.1983 to 27.08.1983. Subsequent to that he completed his basic training as was directed on different dates from 1981 to 1983 and having passed the training, he was granted regular pay scale from 27.08.1983. Thereafter, the petitioner since was not

given the required pay-scale he filed a writ petition bearing WPS No.4358/2012 wherein this Court on 23.08.2012 has directed to take appropriate decision. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the representation was submitted, however, the documents were not attached and as such for want of documents, the representation of the petitioner was rejected. Thereafter, along with all the requisite documents the petitioner filed the representation, which is filed as Annexure P-8 dated 08.11.2017. Reference is made to the recommendation letter dated 22.11.2017 whereby the representation of the petitioner along with documents was forwarded to the Director, Directorate Public Instructions and it is prayed that the same may be directed to be decided so that the petitioner may be granted the regular pay scale.

3. Perused the documents. It appears that by letter dated 22.11.2017 (Annexure P-8) the application of the petitioner dated 08.11.2017 along with requisite documents was forwarded to the Director, Directorate Public Instructions. In view of this the Director, Directorate Public Instructions since already is in hold of the matter is directed to decide the case of the petitioner after considering all the documents within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of this order.

4. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Goutam Bhaduri Judge Ashu