Harishchandra Miri v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 6505 OF 2019 1.
Harishchandra Miri S/o Jeet Ram Miri, Aged About 33 Years, presently working as Lecturer (Panchayat) at Government High School, Sajapali, Block Chhura, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh.
2.
Rudra Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Hemlal Yadav, Aged About 37 Years, Presently Working as Lecturer Panchayat at Government Higher Secondary School, Murmura, Block Chhura, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioners versus 1.
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2.
Secretary Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3.
Commissioner Cum Director, Directorate Of Panchayat, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
4.
Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh.
5.
District Education Officer, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. 6.
Block Education Officer, Chhura, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner :
Mr. C.J.K. Rao, Advocate For Respondents :
Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 28/08/2019 1.
Grievance of the petitioners in the present writ petition is the non-acceptance of the past service rendered by the petitioners as Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) by the respondents for the purpose of absorption in the Education Department. 2.
The details of initial appointment of the petitioners as also the subsequent appointment and the post against which they were appointed on two occasions, are reflected in the chart as produced below:
Sl. No.
Petitioners' name Date of Initial Appointment Date of Subsequent Appointment 1.
Petitioner No.1 (Harishchandra Miri) 2.6.2009 (Shiksha Karmi Grade-III) 8.7.2011 (Shiksha Karmi Grade-I) 2.
Petitioner No.2 (Rudra Kumar Yadav) 3.3.2009 (Shiksha Karmi Grade-III) 9.7.2011 (Shiksha Karmi Grade-I)
3.
For the purpose of grant of revised pay scale, the State Government has taken the past service of the petitioners rendered as Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) and has granted the benefit of revised pay scale on completion of 8 years of service starting from the time when the petitioners were initially appointed as Assistant Teacher (Panchayat). 4.
The grievance of the petitioners now is that though the department has accepted the past service of the petitioners for the purpose 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.
5.
This Court does not find any strong reason or ground on the part of the department for not accepting the past service of the petitioners for the purpose of absorption particularly when the department has counted the past service for the purpose of grant of revised pay scale.
6.
Given the aforesaid facts, let the case of the petitioners be scrutinized by respondents no. 1 & 2 and an appropriate order be passed as to why the past service of the petitioners cannot be counted for the purpose of absorption when the department itself has counted the said period for the purpose of revised pay scale. 7.
Let an order be passed in this regard by respondents no. 1 & 2 within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 8.
It shall be the responsibility of the petitioners to apprise the respondents no. 1 & 2 so far as the order passed by this Court is concerned. 9.
The petitioners would be at liberty to file a suitable representation, if they so want, supported with all relevant documents.
10.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge /sharad/