Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 4]

Chattisgarh High Court

Kailash Kumar Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh 27 Wps/614/2018 ... on 16 January, 2018

Author: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava

Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava

                                                                                              NAFR


         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                  WPS No. 543 of 2018

        Kailash Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Rupram Sahu Aged About 36 Years
        Working As Lecturer Panchayat And Posted At Govt. Highe School
        Morwa, Block Gurur, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh

                                                                               ---- Petitioner

                                            Versus

     1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
        Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya,
        Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh

     2. Chief Executiver Officer, Zila Panchayat, Balod, District Balod,
        Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh

                                                                          ---- Respondents

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate.

For State : Mr. Majid Ali, Dy. GA

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order on Board 16/01/2018

1. Learned counsel for the parties would submit that the issue raised in this petition is squarely covered by order dated 28.11.2017 passed by this Court in WPS No. 2530 of 2017 (Mukesh Kumar Patel and another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another) and batch of petitions wherein the circular dated 23.04.2016 has been quashed, petitions allowed and it has been declared that the petitioners therein shall be entitled to obtain the benefit of revised pay-scale on completion of 8 years service by including the services rendered by them on a lower post or on the same post.

2. In view of the aforesaid submission and the impugned order and action is based on circular dated 23.04.2016 which has been quashed in the case referred to herein above, the petition also deserves to be allowed with the direction that the petitioner shall be entitled to obtain the benefit of revised pay-scale on completion of 8 years service by including the services rendered by him on a lower post or on the same post.

3. No order as to costs.

Sd/-

(Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Rohit