1 2025:CGHC:32774 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6759 of 2025 1 - Kailash Chandra Bishwal S/o Shri Kunj Bihari Bishwal Aged About 62 Years R/o Post Nadigaon Tahsil Sariya District - Sarangarh - Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of School Education Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director Directorate Of Public Instruction Indrawati Bhawan Naya Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - District Education Officer Sarangarh District - Sarangarh - Bilaigarh (C.G.) 4 - Block Education Officer Baramkela District - Sarangarh - Bilaigarh (C.G.) 5 - Joint Director Treasury, Accounts And Pension Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 6 - Secretary Department Of Finance Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Avinash Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.15 11:01:50 +0530 2 14/07/2025 Heard. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled for Kramonnati as per the last circular issued by the Government on 08.08.2018, as he has completed 30 years of service. He would further submit that earlier circulars for grant Kramonnati were issued on 19.04.1999, 28.04.2008, 03.10.2008, 11.01.2010 and lastly on 08.08.2008 and according to that since the petitioner has completed 30 years of service, he would be entitled for third time pay-scale. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the issue involved in the present petition has already been considered and decided by this Court in the matter of “R.S. Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh and others” passed in WPS No. 2805/2002, vide order dated 29.08.2006. He would also submit that the petitioner may be granted liberty to make a representation to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of “State of Tripura and others v. K.K. Roy, 2004 SCW 1 and the order passed in R.S. Verma (supra). 3. The submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner is not opposed by the counsel appearing for the respondents/State. 4. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the petitioner is permitted to make representation before the concerned authority. It is expected that the competent authority, subject to verification of record, shall decide the representation of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, in an objective manner, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 5. With the aforesaid observation and liberty, the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved