Vikram Singh Rajput v. Mrs. Renu G Pillay

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CONT No. 772 of 2021 Vikram Singh Rajput, S/o. Mr. Narayan Singh Rajput, Aged About 43 Years, Post Assistant Teacher, (Local Body) Posted At Govt. Primary School Narbada, Block Gurur, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Mrs. Renu G Pillay, Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Mantralaya, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Rajendra Kumar Tataudi, Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Gurur, District Balod, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board 08.10.2021 Heard

1. This Court on 25.11.2019 in WPS No.7651 of 2019 has passed the following orders :

1. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is the non granting of revised pay scale on completing 8 years of service.

2. The petitioner contends that the petitioner was initially appointed as constable on 14/10/1998 with Commandant, 7th Battalion respondent No.4. Subsequently, his services were absorbed as Shiksha Karmi, Grade-III on 8/09/2008. However, the Department is not accepting the total length of service rendered by the petitioner even in the department of respondent No.4 Commandant, 7th Battalion for the purpose of granting of revised pay scale.

3. Counsel for the parties fairly submit that the issue raised in the present writ petition stands squarely covered by a bunch of

writ petitions decided by this Court on 27.10.2018, the leading case being WPS No. 6147 of 2018 (Shabnum Khatun Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others).

4. Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the present writ petition also deserves to be and is accordingly disposed of in similar terms as in the case of Shabnum Khatun (supra). The petitioner would be entitled for the benefit as prayed for subject to verification of the case by the Department so far as the length of service and other eligibility criteria is concerned.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the internal correspondence have taken place, however, the benefit has not been granted.

3. Considering the submission and the tenor of the order, I do not find any deliberate disobedience of the order is made out. Accordingly, the contempt petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be very to file a separate well constituted petition.

Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Aks Judge