Surendra Bansal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 3006 of 2021

1. Surendra Bansal S/o Late T. R. Bansal Aged About 48 Years Working As Steno Typist In Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. Superintendent Of Police Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

3. Joint Director Account, Treasuty And Pension Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ----Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri C.J.K. Rao, Advocate.

For State :

Shri Kunal Das, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 29.06.2021

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioner, a steno-typist, seeking a direction to the respondents to grant him benefit of revised pay-scale, which the petitioner is claiming on the strength of State Government's circular dated 18-21983 & 4-2-1985.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that based on the above circulars, different departments of the State Government have granted benefit of revised pay-scale of steno-typist, as would be apparent from the order filed collectively as Annexure P-4, therefore, the petitioner is also entitled for similar treatment.

3. Learned State counsel would submit that if the petitioner prefers fresh representation before the competent authority, the said authority shall consider the representation and decide the same, in accordance with law.

4. Considering the entire facts situation of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in the event, the petitioner prefers fresh representation within a period of one month raising his grievance, the competent authority shall consider and decide the same by speaking order at the earliest, preferably within a period of three months from the date of submission of representation.

5. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the respondent authorities shall decide the matter, on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law, without treating any observation made in this order, as opinion on the merits of the case

6. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. Sd/-

1. P. Sam Koshy Judge Jyotijha