← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWA/830/2018dismissed

Kashi Ram Patel v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2019-02-01Hon'Ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WA No. 830 of 2018 • Kashi Ram Patel, S/o Late R.D. Patel, Aged About 64 Years, Post Retired Sahayak Pashu Chikitsa Chhetra Adhikari, R/o Village Sapose, Chandrapur, District : JanjgirChampa, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Live Stock Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. The Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Directorate, Veterinary Services, Ground Floor, Block No. 3, Indravati, Bhawan, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Yogesh Chandra, Adv.

For State :

Shri Gagan Tiwari, Dy. G.A.

DB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order On Board by Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava 01.02.2019 1.

Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that even though the petitioner has a good case on merits, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition by exercising his discretionary power on the ground of delay. He would submit that in a case like this the petition could not be dismissed because the claim for calculating fixation of pay is a recurring cause of action. Though petition has been filed after nine years, the matter was required to be decided on merits.

2.

Learned Single Judge has taken a view that the petitioner was granted higher pay scale vide order dated 23.04.2008 w.e.f. 01.08.2003, and though he remained in the employment for a period of 8 1⁄2 years, he did not raise any grievance or objection and after more than two years from his retirement and more than twelve years from the date of granting higher pay scale, the petitioner filed this petition.

3.

The decisions of Supreme Court in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh

and ors. Vs. Yogendra Shrivastava 1 and Union of India and Ors. Vs.

Tarsem Singh 2 cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable because in the present case the petitioner filed this petition after a lapse of five years of his retirement. 4.

Accordingly, the WA is dismissed.

Sd/- Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) (Rajani Dubey) Judge Judge yasmin (2010) 12 SCC 538 (2008) SCC 648