Dinesh Kumar Uike v. State Of Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WP(S) No. 13 of 2020

1. Dinesh Kumar Uike, S/o. Shri Ghassuram Uike, Aged About 46 Years, Occupation Lecturer, High School Badepenjodi, R/o. Village Badepenjodi Police Station Aamabeda, Tahsil Antagarh, District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh

2. Smt. Bashanti Darro, S/o. Shri Devnath Darro, Aged About 43 Years, Occupation Lecturer, High School Badepenjodi, R/o. Village Badepenjodi Police Station Aamabeda, Tahsil Antagarh, District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh

3. Mukesh Uike, S/o. Shri Ghassuram Uike, Aged About 44 Years, Occupation Lecturer, High School Amodi, R/o. Village Amodi, Tahsil Antagarh, District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh

4. Maan Singh Dugga, S/o. Shri Dulu Ram Dugga, Aged About 42 Years, Occupation Lecturer, High School Kolar, R/o. Village Kolar, Tahsil Antagarh, District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. The Secretary, Panchayat, Rural Development & Labour Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

3. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Antagarh, District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh

4. District Education Officer Kanker, District Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Abdul Wahab Khan, Advocate For State :

Mr. Alok Bakshi, Addl. A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 11.02.2020 Heard 1.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have filed an application that they were working prior to 1998 in the Panchayat Department and they were subsequently absorbed in Education Department. It is contended that the petitioners raised grievance that the

amount was being deducted under National Pension Scheme (N.P.S.) from the salary and the N.P.S. has been implemented from 01.01.2004, whereas the petitioners have been appointed in the year 1998; therefore, the deduction under the N.P.S. cannot be made from their salary. It is further contended that the petitioners have made an application that the deduction may not be made under the N.P.S. and they should be allowed to give privilege which was given earlier. It is further contended that the petitioners have made an application to the District Education Officer, which may be directed to be decided.

2.

At this stage, since limited prayer is made, the petitioners are given liberty to make a fresh representation redressing all the averments to the respondent No.4 within a period of 4 weeks, which shall be decided within a further period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the representation. It is observed that this Court has not made any observation on the merit of this case.

3.

With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge ashok