Ku. Geeta Jems v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO.5984 OF 2019 Ku. Geeta Jems D/o A. Jems, Aged About 39 Years Working As Lecturer (Panchayat) And Posted At Govt. High School Semariya, Block Dhamdha, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

...Petitioner(s)

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. The Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner :

Shri Manoj Mishra, Advocate.

For Respondent-State :

Shri Jitendra Pali, Dy. Advocate General.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 13.08.2019

1. The grievance of the petitioner in this petition is non acceptance of the past service rendered by the petitioner as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III in the past for the purpose of absorption in the Education Department.

2. The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner was initially appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III and subsequently in a fresh recruitment selected as Lecturer (Panchayat). For the purpose of granting revised pay scale, the State has taken the past services rendered by the petitioner as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III and have granted benefit of revised pay scale on completion of 8 years service starting from first date of appointment.

3. The grievance of the petitioner now is that, though the department has accepted the past services of the petitioner for the purpose of grant of revised pay scale, but for the purpose of counting the total length of service for absorption in the Education Department, the past service is not being considered.

4. This Court does not find any strong reason or ground on the part of the Department for not accepting the past service of the petitioner for the purpose of absorption particularly when the department has counted the past service for the purpose of grant of revised pay scale.

5. Given the aforesaid fact, let the case of the petitioner be scrutinized by respondent No.2 and an appropriate order be passed as to why the past service of the petitioner cannot be counted for the purpose of absorption when the Department itself has counted the said period for the purpose of revised pay scale. Let an order be passed by respondent No.2 within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It shall be the responsibility of the petitioner to apprise respondent No.2 so far as the order passed by this Court is concerned. The petitioner would be at liberty to file a suitable representation, if so want, supported with all relevant documents.

6. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge inder