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

Satish Kumar Dewangan vs State Of Chhattisgarh 26 Wps/2015/2018 ... on 5 March, 2018

Author: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava

Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava

                                                                                              NAFR


         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                 WPS No. 2019 of 2018

        Satish Kumar Dewangan S/o Shri Dileram Dewangan Aged About
        45 Years R/o Village Lofandi Post Koni Tahsil Takhatpur District
        Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

                                                                               ---- Petitioner

                                            Versus

     1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Panchayat And Rural
        Development Department Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya New
        Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
        Chhattisgarh

     2. Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Bilaspur District Bilaspur
        Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

                                                                           ---- Respondents

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

For Petitioner : Mr. H. V. Sharma, Advocate.

For State : Mr. Majid Ali, Dy. GA

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

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order on Board 05/03/2018

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