High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/6879/2018disposed off

Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2018-10-22Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6879 of 2018 Ashok Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Laxman Yadav, Aged About 62 Years O/o Executive Engineer Hasdeo Canal Division, Nandeli Bhata, Sakti, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Water Resources, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. Executive Engineer Minimata Bango Canal Division No. 6, Nandelibhata, Sakti, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ----Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Lav Sharma, Advocate For State :

Ms. Sunita Jain, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 22/10/2018

1. The grievance raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition is the non-granting of the Time Pay Scale to the petitioner on completion of 8 years and 12 years of service continuously on one post.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has made a representation in this regard to the department, but till date no decision has been taken. He submits that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Grade-III in the year 1990 and he retired on the same post w.e.f. 30.09.2018.

3. Given the said facts, let the respondent No.2 scrutinize the case of the petitioner and in case if the petitioner is entitled for the same, let necessary recommendation or instructions be issued either by himself or by the competent authority in the department at the earliest preferably within a period of 90 days from today. In case if the petitioner

is entitled for the same, then the petitioner would be entitled for the retiral dues on the said revised pay scale.

4. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed off. The grievance raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition is the non-granting of the Time Pay Scale to the petitioner on completion of 8 years and 12 years of service continuously on one post.

5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has made a representation in this regard to the department, but till date no decision has been taken. He submits that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Grade-III in the year 1990 and he retired on the same post w.e.f. 30.09.2018.

6. Given the said facts, let the respondent No.2 scrutinize the case of the petitioner and in case if the petitioner is entitled for the same, let necessary recommendation or instructions be issued either by himself or by the competent authority in the department at the earliest preferably within a period of 90 days from today. In case if the petitioner is entitled for the same, then the petitioner would also be entitled for the retiral dues on the said revised pay scale.

7. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed off.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved