Khelan Ram Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3514 of 2018 Khelan Ram Sahu S/o Shri Ganesh Ram Sahu, Aged About 67 Years R/o Jogi Amrai Road, Gandhi Nagar, Ratanpur, Post Ratanpur, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. Collector, Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.

3. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.

----Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate For State :

Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 07/05/2018

1. The grievance raised by the petitioner in the instant case, who was working as a Patwari under the respondent No.2, is the non-granting of increment for the period between 1993 to 2003 i.e. a period for 10 years. He further says that the petitioner also before his retirement was entitled for benefits of two kramonnati/higher pay scale on account of being not promoted on the post that he was holding for a continuous period i.e. for a period of 24 years. It was further alleged that the petitioner also has been not paid the salary for the period between 17th October to 31st of October, 2003.

2. The counsel for the petitioner submits that till date he has not been officially communicated by the authorities as to why he is not entitled for the benefits claimed herein above.

3. Taking into consideration the grievance of the petitioner, let the respondent No.2 immediately process the case of the petitioner, so far as his grievances as narrated above is concerned, and in case, if the respondent No.2 finds that the petitioner has during the said period discharged his duties, then the same has to be considered and the petitioner would be entitled for the benefits as claimed for. However, in case if the petitioner has not discharged his duties or is not entitled for the benefits that he has claimed for, then also the respondent No.2 should giving reasons intimate the petitioner as to why he is not entitled for.

4. Let this exercise be completed by the respondent No.2 within a period of 60 days from today.

5. The writ petition stands disposed off.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved