Shyam Sundar Patel v. State Of Chhattisgarh

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4757 of 2021

1. Shyam Sundar Patel S/o Shri Darasram Patel Aged About 42 Years Resident Of Village Bans, Urkuli, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Commissioner, Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. The Collector Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh

4. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bilaigarh, Tahsil Bilaigarh, Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh

5. Tahsildar Bilaigarh, Baloda Bazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ---Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri A.D. Kuldeep, Advocate.

For State :

Ms. Akanksha Jain, Dy. G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 08.09.2021

1. The claim of the petitioner is confined to the arrears of difference of salary for the period between September 2018 to September 2020.

2. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner has been discharging the duties for all these period uninterruptedly but the petitioner has not been paid the amount of remuneration that he was actually entitled for, for the said period. He has been paid much less than what were given to similarly placed persons.

-23. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner has approached the respondent-authorities on various occasions but they have not been acceded to by the respondents.

4. Given the aforesaid factual matrix of the case subject to verification of whether the petitioner has discharged his duty for the intervening period and also verify as to the post on which and the category or nature of employment. The claim of the petitioner for difference of wages for the period September 2018 to September 2020 be considered and decided at the earliest preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The petitioner in-addition would also be entitled to approach the respondents by way of a suitable fresh representation giving details of nature of employment discharged by him, which too shall be taken note off by the respondents while deciding his claim.

5. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge J-