High Court Of ChhattisgarhMCC/943/2016disposed off

Smt. Gayatri Jaiwal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2017-01-02Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.C.C. No.943 of 2016

1. Smt. Gayatri Jaiwal W/o Shri K.P.Jaiswal, Aged About 50 Years Presently Working As Assistance Teacher Govt. Primary School Pantora, P. S. & Block Baloda, Revenue & Civil District Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh)

2. Smt. Lachhan Bai Khairwar, W/o Shri Ram Swaroop Khairwar, Aged About 50 Years Posted As Assistance Teacher (Panchayat) At Janpad Prathmik- Shala- Kendara, P. S. & Block Baloda, Revenue & Civil District Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh)

3. Navratan Singh Kanwar S/o Shri Mohan Singh, Aged About 43 Years Presently Working As Assistance Teacher, Govt. Primary School Handaspur, P. S. & Block Baloda, Revenue & Civil District Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh)

4. Mahesh Dev Singh S/o Gaukaran Singh, Aged About 51 Years Presently Working As Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) Govt. Primary School Pantora P. S. & Block Baloda, Revenue & Civil District Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh) ----Applicants

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 Janjgir Champa, Distt. Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh)

3. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Baloda Distt. Janjgir Champa (Chhattisgarh)

4. The Block Education Officer, Baloda Distt. Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) ---- Non-applicants For Applicants :

Shri Sandeep Dubey, Advocate For Non-applicants/State:

Ms. Astha Shukla, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 02/01/2017

(1) Heard.

(2) The applicants have filed this application for correction/modification in order dated 16.11.2016 passed in WP(S) No.6253 of 2016.

(3) Learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that in para-1 of the order dated 16.11.2016, neither they have been given karmonanti nor they have been given Samayman Vetanman (time bound pay scale) has been mentioned whereas, it is neither they have been given Padonnati (Promotion) nor they have been given Samayman Vetanman (time bound pay scale) and therefore, same may be corrected.

(4) In view of above, it is directed that in place of neither they have been given karmonnati nor they have been given Samayman Vetanman (time bound pay scale) it be read as neither they have been given Padonnati (Promotion) nor they have been given Samayman Vetanman (time bound pay scale) in order dated 16.11.2016 passed in WP(S) No.6253 of 2016. Other contents of order dated 16.11.2016 shall remain intact.

(5) With the aforesaid clarification, the MCC stands finally disposed of.

(6) Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge L/-