Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 8342 (CHH)

MINHAZ AHMED KHAN v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPS/1112/2025 · 2025-03-07

Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:11505 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1112 of 2025 1 - Minhaz Ahmed Khan S/o Shri Niyaz Ahmed Khan Aged About 62 Years R/o Village And Post- Ranka, Tahsil-Berla, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Nand Kishore Chedaiya S/o Shri Darbariram Chedaiya Aged About 62 Years R/o Village- Balaudikala, Teh. Berla, Jila- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, School Education Department, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The District Education Officer Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Block Education Officer Berla, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 6 - The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Berla, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Shri K.P. Sahu, Advocate For State : Shri Ajit Singh, Government Advocate Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.03.24 20:13:57 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 07/03/2025 1. By the instant petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records pertaining to the case of petitioners from the respondents. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant first time pay scale in favour of petitioners from the date of completion of 10 years services and second time bound pay scale from the date of completion of 20 years services. 10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to revise the pension and other monetary benefits of the petitioners accordingly. 10.4 That any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including cost of the petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioners.” 2. Claim of the petitioners are for grant of time pay scale/kramonnati vetanman on completion of 10 years of service and for grant of second time pay scale from the date of completion of 20 years of service. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that with regard to award of kramonnati vetanman some circular has also been issued by the State/respondents. Apart from this, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Sona Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh and others in Writ Appeal No.261 of 2023 has also considered the identical issue, as such the present petitioners are also entitled for first kramonnati vetanman and second kramonnati vetanman. He further submits that at present this petition may be 3 disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to make a representation to the competent authority/respondents in light of judgment passed by this Court in W.A. No.261 of 2023 dated 28/02/2024. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. Be that as it may, looking to the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners, the instant petition, at this stage, is disposed of permitting the petitioners to make a representation raising all grounds as raised in the instant writ petition to the competent authority/respondents annexing all relevant documents and a copy of the judgment of this Court passed in W.A. No.261 of 2023. On such representation being made, it is expected that the competent authority/respondents shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law considering the circular(s) issued in this regard, in light of the judgment of this Court in W.A. No.261 of 2023 within a period of four months from the date of submission of the representation. 6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case. It is for the competent authority/respondents to consider and decide the claim of the petitioners on merits of their case. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Gopal Singh