Smt. Krishnalata Upadhyay v. State Of Chhattisgarh

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3374 of 2019 Smt. Krishnalata Upadhyay W/o Shri Satish Upadhayay Aged About 35 Years Occuapation Lecturer (Nagriya Nikay), R/o Mahboob Shahdatar Ward No. 9, Kawardha, District Kawardha, (Kabirdham) Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development Mahanadi Bhawan,new Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Joint Director Department Of Urban Administration And Development,naya Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Chief Municipal Officer Nagar Palika Parishad, Kawardha, District Kawardha (Kabirdham) Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Ms. Varsha Sharma, Advocate For State :

Ms. Astha Shukla, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 06/05/2019

1. The dispute raised in the present writ petition is the nonconsideration of the case of the petitioner for grant of revised pay scale on completion of 8 years of service. The denial to the petitioner was that the petitioner has not completed 8 years of service under the same employer.

2. The grievance of the petitioner was that the petitioner was initially appointed under the Panchayat department and subsequently

-2applied for recruitment on the higher post under the Nagriya Nikay in the year 2011 and taking both the services, the petitioner has completed more than 8 years of service and therefore she is entitled for the benefit of higher pay scale.

3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in a bunch of writ petitions disposed off on 27.10.2018. The lead case of which being WPS No. 6147/2018 (Shabnum Khatun v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.)

4. This aspect is not disputed by the State counsel so far as the matter being similar to the one passed in the case of "Shabnum Khatun" (supra).

5. Given the facts and circumstances of the case the present writ petition also deserves to be and is accordingly disposed off in similar terms to the order passed in WPS No. 6147/2018 (Shabnum Khatun v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors).

6. The writ petition accordingly stands allowed. The petitioner would be entitled for the benefit as prayed for subject to the verification of the case by the Department.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rohit