Vinod Chandra Gupta v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5042 of 2018 Vinod Chandra Gupta S/o Late Girish Chandra Gupta Aged About 64 Years Retired Revenue Inspector, Municipal Council, Baikunthpur, R/o Ward No. 16, Opposite Palace, Baikunthpur, District- Korea, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Director Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Directorate, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. Joint Director Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Surguja Division, Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

4. Chief Municipal Officer Nagar Palika Parisad-Baikunthpur, DistrictKorea, Chhattisgarh ----Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate For State :

Mr. Shashank Thakur, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 08/08/2018

1. Though there are various claims raised by the petitioner in this case, however considering the fact that the petitioner retired from the post of Revenue Inspector w.e.f. 30.04.2016, the petitioner confines his claim for a direction to the respondents to consider his claim for grant of time bond promotion, which he would have otherwise entitled for under the guidelines and circulars of the State Government issued from time to time on account of the petitioner not getting a promotion for a considerable long period. He further submits that the petitioner even otherwise has a claim for wrong fixation made to the petitioner in as much as he was entitled for the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000/- whereas he was given the pay scale of only Rs.4000-6000/-.

2. The State counsel opposing the petition submits that the petition appears to have been filed at a belated stage for the reason that all along when the petitioner was in service, he did not raise any claim or objection and has now after his retirement filed petitions after petitions claiming one relief or the other, thus prayed for dismissal of the petition.

3. Considering the fact that two reliefs sought for, which has been confined to by the petitioner in this petition being monetary claim, this Court is inclined to treat the said claim of the petitioner to be a recurring cause of action and disposes of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents No.2 & 3 to immediately process the representation of the petitioner to the extent whether the petitioner would have been entitled for the benefit of time bond pay scale and also whether the petitioner would had been entitled for the salary in the scale of Rs.4500-7000/- instead of Rs.4000-6000/-.

4. The petitioner would be at liberty to file a fresh representation confining his claim to these two reliefs, if he so chooses, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and on such representation being made, the respondents are expected to decide the same within a further period of 90 days from the date the order of this Court is communicated to the respondents No.2 & 3.

5. It shall be the responsibility of the petitioner to appraise the respondents No.2 & 3 so far as the order passed by this Court in this petition.

6. The writ petition thus stands allowed and disposed off. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved