Chattisgarh High Court
Santosh Kumar Kashyap vs State Of Chhattisgarh 73 Wps/8099/2018 ... on 7 December, 2018
Author: P. Sam Koshy
Bench: P. Sam Koshy
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 8081 of 2018
Santosh Kumar Kashyap S/o. Bhagat Ram Kashyap, Aged About 31 Years
Assistant Teacher (Nagriya Nikay) At Govt. Primary School Maa
Gadidaipara Rahoud, Nagar Panchayat Rahoud, Block Pamgarh, District
Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban
Administration And Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya
Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Director, Department Of Urban Administration And Development,
Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
3. Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4. Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat Rahoud, District Janjgir Champa
Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For petitioner : Shri Govind Dewangan, Advocate.
For State : Shri Dhiraj Wankhede,GA.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order on Board
07/12/2018
1. The dispute raised in the present writ petition is the nonconsideration of the case of the petitioner for grant of revised pay scale on completion of 8 years of service. The denial to the petitioner was that the petitioner has not completed 8 years of service under the same employer.
2. The grievance of the petitioner was that the petitioner was initially appointed under the Urban Administration Department and subsequently applied for recruitment on the higher post under the Panchayat Department in the year 2013 and taking both the services, the petitioner has completed 2 more than 8 years of service and therefore she is entitled for the benefit of higher pay scale.
3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in a bunch of writ petitions disposed off on 27.10.2018. The lead case of which being WPS No. 6147/2018 (Shabnum Khatun v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.)
4. This aspect is not disputed by the State counsel so far as the matter being similar to the one passed in the case of "Shabnum Khatun" (supra).
5. Given the facts and circumstances of the case the present writ petition also deserves to be and is accordingly disposed off in similar terms to the order passed in WPS No. 6147/2018 (Shabnum Khatun v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors).
6. The writ petition accordingly stands allowed. The petitioner would be entitled for the benefit as prayed for subject to the verification of the case by the Department.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy)
Rohit JUDGE