Panchlal Usendi v. The State I Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 6045 of 2019
1. Panchlal Usendi, S/o Mr. Chamra Ram Usendi, Aged About 35 Years, By Occupation Lecturer (Panchayat), Govt. High School Ghumsimunda, Block Antagarh, District - Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh
2. Domendar Singh Netam, S/o Mr. Nirbhaya Ram Netam, Aged About 31 Years, By Occupation Lecturer (Panchayat), Govt. H.S.S. Thema Block Narharpur, District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh
3. Manoj Tirkey, S/o Mr. Edward Tirkey, Aged About 37 Years, By Occupation Lecturer (Panchayat), Govt, H.S.S. Thema, Block Narharpur, District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh
4. Bhupesh Kumar Mandavi, S/o Mr. Dhiru Ram Mandavi, Aged About 37 Years, By Occupation Lecturer (Panchayat), Govt, High School Telawat, Block Kanker, District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh
5. Bhuneshwari Dhurwe, W/o Mr. Jitendra Kumar Dhruwe, Aged About 32 Years, By Occupation Lecturer (Panchayat), Govt. H.S.S. Babudabena, Block Kanker, District Uttar Bastar Kanker
6. Jitendra Kumar Dhruwe, S/o Mr. Bharosa Ram Dhruwe, Aged About 34 Years, By Occupation Lecturer (Panchayat), Govt. High School Jaisakarra, Block Charma, District Uttar Bastar Kanker, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh
7. Tikam Singh Churendra, S/o Mr. Bisram Singh Churendra, Aged About 36 Years, By Occupation Lecturer (Panchayat), Govt. High School, Jaisakarra, Block Charama, District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh
8. Rajesh Rajak, S/o Mr. Govardhan Ram Rajak, Aged About 34 Years, By Occupation Lecturer (Panchayat), Govt. High School, Kishanpuri, Block Narharpur, District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh
9. Vijay Singh Thakur, S/o Mr. Pusau Ram Thakur, Aged About 32 Years, By Occupation Lecturer (Panchayat), Govt. High School, Kalgaon, Block Antagarh, District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh
10. Tej Singh Dehari, S/o Mr. Shriram Dehari, Aged About 38 Years, By Occupation Lecturer (Panchayat), Govt. High School, Kalgaon, Block Antagarh, District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur, DistrictRaipur Chhattisgarh
2. Secretary Through Secretary, School Education Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh
3. Director, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Sanchanalya, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh
4. District Education Officer, Raipur Chhattisgarh
5. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, District- Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners :
Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For Respondent-State :
Ms. Abhyunnati Singh, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 13.08.2019
1. Ignoring the default pointed out by the Registry, with the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally at motion stage and disposed off.
2. The grievance of the petitioners in this Writ Petition is non acceptance of the past service rendered by the petitioners in the past for the purpose of absorption in the Education Department.
3. The case of the petitioners are that, the petitioners have been working under the respondents on different posts and have subsequently been
given fresh appointment on different posts and since then continues to discharge their duties on that post. Earlier the petitioners had filed separate writ petitions for counting their previous service for grant of revised pay scale. The said writ petitions were disposed off and in compliance of the directions given by this Court, the respondents have passed an order on 29.05.2019, 13.02.2019 and 01.03.2019 respectively granting the benefit of revised pay scale taking the previous service rendered by them.
4. The grievance of the petitioners now is that, though the department has accepted the past services of the petitioners for the purpose of grant of revised pay scale, but when the question of absorption came, the past services of the petitioners is not being considered for want of proper NOC from the previous place of service of the petitioners.
5. The contention of the petitioner is that, once when the department has considered the past service for the purpose of revised pay scale, there is no reason why past services could not be counted for the purpose of absorption. It was further the contention of the petitioners that so far as requirement of NOC for the purpose of revised pay scale is concerned, the same stood already quashed by this court in WPS No. 2530 of 2017, Mukesh Kumar Patel Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others and other connected writ petitions, decided by this court on 28.11.2017.
6. The State counsel opposing the petition submits that, it is a case where the petitioners came into present service by way of participating as a fresh candidate in a fresh recruitment conducted, and therefore, the past services rendered cannot be counted unless the petitioners would have obtained an NOC from the department for appearing/selection in the subsequent recruitment process. He further submits that even the record does not show of the respondents taking a decision that the petitioners are
not entitled for the relief that they have sought for and it is also not a case where there is any particular order which is under challenge in this writ petition.
7. Given the aforesaid contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of records, what is an admitted factual position is that the petitioner's past services has been counted by the department for the purpose of grant of revised pay scale. Once when the department accepts the past services for the purpose of revised pay scale, this court does not find any strong reason why the said period would not be counted for the purpose of absorption as the department itself has accepted the said period as continuous service for the purpose of granting revised pay scale.
8. Under the circumstances, let the Respondent No. 1 take a fresh decision on the issue and pass an appropriate order at the earliest preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order keeping in view the fact that the department itself has counted the past services of the petitioners for the purpose of revised pay scale.
9. It shall be the responsibility of the petitioners to apprise the Respondent No.1, so far as the order passed by this Court is concerned. 10.The petitioners would also be at liberty to file a fresh representation, if they so want.
11.The Writ Petition, accordingly stands disposed off. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rahul