← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/5448/2016disposed off

Vijay Lal Paikra v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2016-10-04Hon'Ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 5448 of 2016

1. Vijay Lal Paikra S/o Shri Manohar Paikra Aged About 35 Years Presently Working On The Post Of Assistant Teacher ( Panchayat ) Govt. Higher Secondary School Chendra Block - Odagi District - Surajpur Chhattisgarh

2. Kamkotar Paikra, S/o Shri Prem Sai Paikra, Aged About 33 Years Presently Working On The Post Of Assistant Teacher ( Panchayat ) Govt. Primary School Dand Amorani Block - Odagi District - Surajpur Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. The Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Surajpur District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.

3. The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Odagi District Surajpur Chhattisgarh

4. The Block Education Officer Odagi District Surajpur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents Shri A.N.Pandey, counsel for the petitioner/s. Shri D.R.Minj, Dy.G.A. for the State.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 04/10/2016 Heard on admission.

1.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are working as Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) since 2005, neither they have been given Kramonnati nor they have been given Samayman Vetanman (time bound pay scale) and therefore, they may be permitted to file representation before the competent authority for redressal of their grievances. To this, counsel for the State has no objection.

2.

Prayer appears to be fair and reasonable.

3.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off. In the eventuality of making any

representation by the petitioners highlighting their grievances, the same is expected to be decided by the authority concerned expeditiously in accordance with law. 4.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and authority concerned would be at liberty to decide the representation in accordance with law.

Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) J U D G E Deepti