Ku. Savitri Tandan v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5220 of 2018

1. Ku. Savitri Tandan D/o Shri Roop Das Tandan Aged About 29 Years Occupation - Subedar / Stenographer (M) Working Under The Superintendent Of Police, Mahasmund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.

2. Smt. Rameshwari Bariha W/o Late Shri Sahebram Bariha Aged About 31 Years Occupation - Assistant Sub Inspector (M) Under The Special Branch Mahasamund (Zonal Office At Superintendent Of Police, Special Branch Jagdalpur, District Jagdalpur Bastar Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Affairs, Police Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. The Secretary, Finance, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3. The Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarters, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

----Respondents For Petitioners :

Mr. Palash Tiwari, Advocate For State :

Mr. Dheeraj Wankhede, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 14/08/2018

1. Grievance of the Petitioners is that, the Petitioners No.1 & 2 working as Subedar/Stenographer (M) and Assistant Sub Inspector (M) respectively under the Respondents is being denied the grant of adhoc pay increase which has been granted to other similarly placed persons but who were not in Ministerial cadre.

2. Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the grievance involved in the present writ petition has already been adjudicated upon in favour of the other similarly placed persons in Writ Petition (S) No. 4563 of 2006 [Abdul Nawab Khan & Others v. The State of Chhattisgarh &

Others], decided on 7.5.2009. The judgment passed by this Court in Writ Petition (S) No. 4563 of 2006 has been affirmed even up till the stage of Supreme Court. Subsequently, another batch of petitioners filed a writ petition i.e., Writ Petition No. 4523 of 2014 [Francis Xavier Back & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others], and the said writ petition also got disposed on 3.7.2015, granting the benefit which has been extended to the other similarly placed persons in the light of the decision rendered in the case of Abdul Nawab Khan (supra). Counsel for the Petitioners therefore prays that the Respondents may further be directed to consider the case of the Petitioners also in similar line.

3. Counsel for the State does not oppose the same.

4. Accordingly, the present writ petition is also disposed of in similar line as in the case of Francis Xavier Back & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh, decided on 3.7.2015 in Writ Petition (S) No. 4523 of 2014.

5. In case subject to verification, if the Petitioners are found eligible, the relief as sought for may be released to them forthwith and if Respondents find that the Petitioners are not entitled, they may be suitably intimated in this regard giving reasons for their non entitlement.

6. Let this exercise be done within a period of 90 days from the date of the Petitioners presenting the certified copy of this order before the respondent authorities.

7. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition finally stands disposed of.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved