Manisha Thakur v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 6997 of 2018 Manisha Thakur W/o Gajendra Singh Thakur, Aged About 37 Years, Posted As Shiksha Karmi Grade -I (Urban ) Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School, Hathkhoj, Tahsil Durg, District Durg (CG) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Urban Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. Secretary, State Of Chhattisgarh Panchayat And Rural Development, Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

3. Municipal Corporation, Bhilai Charoda Through Commissioner, Office at Bhilai, Charoda, District Durg (CG) ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Praveen Kumar Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondent/State :

Shri Majid Ali, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 16/11/2018 The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is the non granting of the advantage of higher pay scale which the petitioner is entitled for on her completion of 8 years of service. 2.

Denial on the part of the respondents was on the ground that the petitioner does not have 8 years service under the same employer. It is a case where the petitioner was initially appointed under the Panchayat

Department. Subsequently after obtaining NOC has got a fresh appointment with the Urban Administration Department. 3.

The claim of the petitioner is that if the services rendered by her in the Panchayat Department is also counted for the purpose of grant of higher pay scale, she would be entitled for the benefit. 4.

The issue raised by the petitioner in the instant case is squarely covered by a bunch of writ petitions decided by this Court on 27.10.2018 in WPS No.6147 of 2018 in the case of Shabnum Khatun Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. and other analogous petitions. 5.

This aspect so far as the factual matrix of the case is concerned is not disputed by the State counsel on verifying the contents of the writ petition.

6.

Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that nothing remains to be adjudicated in the present writ petition as the issue has already been decided by this Court in the aforesaid judgment in the case of Shabnum Khatun(supra). The present writ petition also stands allowed and disposed of in similar terms. The petitioner would be entitled for the benefit as prayed for subject to verification of all other eligibility criteria for grant of higher pay scale. 7.

The writ petition accordingly stands allowed and disposed of. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) JUDGE Khatai