Maheshram Vishwakarma v. State Of Chhattisgarh

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 5543 of 2020

1. Maheshram Vishwakarma S/o Shri Bikul Ram, Aged About 55 Years Occupation Service, Posted As Time Keepar (Samay Pal), Rural Engineering Services, Sub Division Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s)

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur, Atal Nagar District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. Chief Engineer, Panchayat And Rural Development, Vikas Bhawan, Civil Lines, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3. Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Services, Division Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh.

4. Superintendent Engineer, Rural Engineering Services, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

5. Sub Divisional Officer, Rural Engineering Services, Sub Division Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh

6. Joint Director, Treasury Accounts And Pension, Division Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ---Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Sourabh Sahu, Advocate.

For State :

Shri S.S. Thakur, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 27.01.2021 .

1. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition seems to non granting of the regular pay scale which the petitioner is claiming on having put in more than 8 years of service.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that the benefit of regular pay scale has been denied to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was absent from duty between October, 2003 to November, 2012 and subsequently he has come back in service and presently discharging his duties. According to the petitioner, he has already made repeated representations to the authorities concerned for regularizing the said period of absence between October, 2003 to November, 2012, however, no decision till date has been taken on the said application/representation and according to the petitioner

-2unless a decision is taken on the said claim of the petitioner, he would find it difficult in getting regular pay scale inspite of being entitled for the same as on date.

3. The limited relief is not objected by the counsel for the State.

4. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of at this juncture with a direction to the respondents No.2&3 to take an appropriate decision on the application of the petitioner as regards the period of absence between October, 2003 to November, 2012 at the earliest preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

5. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge inder