1 2025:CGHC:20780 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2972 of 2020 1 - Smt. Gita Shukla W/o Narayan Shukla Aged About 44 Years Lecturer (Na- gri Nikay) At Devkinandan Girls Higher Secondary School Bilaspur District Bi- laspur R/o Naya Sarkanda, Jabdapara, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattis- garh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, School Education Depart- ment, Mantralaya Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Deputy Secretary Urban Administration And Development Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Director Directorate Of Panchayat Atal Nagar Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - District Education Officer Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Municipal Corporation Through Its Commissioner Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2025.05.08 10:41:25 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Ms. Diksha Gauraha, Adv. For Respondents No. 1 to 4 : Mr. Amandeep Singh, PL. For respondent No. 5 : Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, Adv. (Hon’ble Mr. Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J) Order on Board 06/05/2025 1. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant case in the writ petition is non-acceptance of the past services rendered by the petitioner as Teacher, Panchayat by the respondents for the purpose of absorption in the Education Department. 2. The case of the petitioner is that initially the petitioner was appointed in the Panchayat Department as Shiksha Karmi Grade – III in the year 2011. Subsequently in another recruitment process, petitioner again got selected as Shiksha Karmi Grade-I (Nagriya Nikay) on 29- 05-2017. According to the petitioner, for the purpose of grant of re- vised pay scale on completion of 8 years of service, the department had counted his past services that he had rendered under Panchayat Department i.e. the appointment initially made in the year 2011. 3. Grievance of the petitioner now is that though the department has ac- cepted the past services of the petitioner for the purpose of revised pay scale but for the purpose of the counting total length of service for absorption in the Education Department, the past services is not being considered. 4. The reason which has been informed to the petitioner is that the peti- tioner has not obtained NOC from the Panchayat Department while applying for appointment in Nagriya Nikay and another reason for not 3 considering was that there is change in the department of the peti- tioner for the purpose of counting two services. 5. So far as the non-obtaining of NOC is concerned, the said aspect al- ready stands decided by this Court in the case of Mukesh Patel Vs. State of Chhattisgarh in WPS No. 2530/2017 decided on 28/11/2017 and so far as the change of department is concerned, that issue also stands decided by this Court in the case of Shabnam Khatun Vs. State of Chhattisgarh in WPS No. 6147/2018 and other connected writ petitions decided on 27/10/2018. 6. Given the aforesaid facts and judgments decided by this Court, no strong reasons have been made out by the department as to why the services rendered by the petitioner in the Panchayat Department would not be acceptable for the purpose of counting his total length of service so far as the claim for absorption is concerned. Once when the department has already accepted the past services for the pur- pose of revised pay scale, there does not seem to be any good rea- son for not applying the same analogy for determining the issue of absorption. 7. Given the said facts and circumstances of the case, let petitioner's case be scrutinized by the respondent No. 1 & 2 and an appropriate order be passed deciding as to why the past services of the petitioner cannot be counted for the purpose of absorption, when the depart- ment itself has counted the said period for the purpose of grant of re- vised pay scale. 8. Let appropriate order be passed by the respondent No. 1 & 2 within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order after 4 thorough verification of the individual details of the petitioner. It shall be the responsibility of the petitioner to apprise respondent No. 1 & 2 so far as order passed by this Court is concerned. The petitioner would also be at liberty to file fresh representation if he so wants. 9. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition stands dis- posed off. Sd/- ( Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Pathak/-