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 10]

Chattisgarh High Court

Manoj Kumar Sharma vs State Of Chhattisgarh 109 Wps/383/2018 ... on 11 January, 2018

Author: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava

Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava

                                                                                    NAFR

                 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                      WPS No. 414 of 2018

        Manoj Kumar Sharma Son Of Shivram Sharma, Aged About 46 Years Working As
        Lecturer Panchayat Govt. Higher Secondary School Mohandi, Block Bhatapara,
        District Baloda Bazar, Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

                                                                            ---- Petitioner

                                          Versus

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

     2. Commissioner- Cum- Director, Directorate Of Panchayat, Naya Raipur, District
        Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

     3. Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

     4. Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar-
        Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

                                                                          --- Respondents

Shri Harish Khuntiya, counsel for the petitioner/s. Shri Majid Ali, Dy.G.A. for the State.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 11/01/2018 Heard.

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 / her on a lower post or on the same post.

3. No order as to costs.

Sd/-

(Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Deepti