Shilpi Ghosh v. The State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 6302 of 2017 • Shilpi Ghosh W/o Shri Sumanta Ghosh, Aged About 34 Years By Occupation Lecturer Panchayat, Govt. H. S. S. Kolam Chitwahi, Block Tamnar, Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. Commissioner Cum Director, Panchayat, Sanchanalaya, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3. The Collector, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate For Respondent-State Shri Adhiraj Surana, Dy. GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 22/11/2017 1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that for the present, the petitioner would not press the relief claimed in paragraph 10.2 of the petition. For the remaining reliefs, it is stated by learned counsel for the parties that the matter in issue is covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in the matter of Jayant Kumar Patle vs State of Chhattisgarh and others, passed in WPS No.4271/2017 and other connected matters,

decided on 03.11.2017.

2.

Learned State counsel would submit that the petitioner has not yet completed 8 years of service, therefore, she is not entitled for the revised pay scale/time scale pay.

3.

Considering the fact that the petitioner's prayer is for quashing the circular dated 08.03.2017, which impedes her entitlement to obtain benefit of revised pay scale/time scale pay, as and when it falls due, the writ petition is disposed of with observation that the competent authority shall consider petitioner's case regarding her entitlement to increment, time scale pay/revised pay scale, as and when she becomes eligible for the same, in view of the circular issued by the State Government and the order passed by this Court in the matter of Jayant Kumar Patle (supra). 4.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation.

Sd/- Judge Prashant Kumar Mishra Nirala