MW COURT <y a^HATnSSARH AT BILASPUR W. P. rS5 No. ^)41 of 2007 Versus Brijesh Kumap Pandey 5/o- Late Njtyanond Podey Aged about 43 yews Occupation- in charge license clerk, Municipnl Corporation, Raigarh R/o.- Darogapara, Rai9arh (C.&.) 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary C>epaTtment of Seneral Administrotion, D.K.S. Bhcmfan Kaipur, Distt. Raipw (c.e.) 2. Municipal Corporation Raigorh, Throtgh Commissioner' AAunicipal Corporation Raigarh (C.6.) SB; Hon'bte Mr. Justice Satish K. Agniholri, J Present: Mr. Amit Sharnia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vinay Pandey, Pane! Lawy'er for State/respondent No. 1. OR&EK (Passed on this 3"1 Day of April, 2CX)7) 1. By this petition, fi!ed under <4rtic!e 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a direction to give the benefit of fixing revised pay-scaie to the petitioner immediately after compteting 12 years of service. 2. Learned counsel appewing •for tiie petitioner submits that the petitioner joined in service in the yeap 1985 and he is entitled to revision of pay after completion of 12 years as per circular- dated 25.4.2000 ((Annexure P-2). He furt+ier- submits that the soid circular provides for grant of Kramonnati wi'i'h effect from the order issued in his fwour. Aceording to the petitioner, he ought to hwe been given Krcmonnatt with effect from Nwember. S997 as others hwe been given. l^S Subhash 3. I have heord tearned counsel appearirg for the petitioner and perused the documents appended thereto. It is cle<r that tiie grant of Kramomoti wouid be effeetive from the date of order passed in fwour of ihe empioyee. Since the order was passed on 1.8.2003 (Annexure P-1), whereunder the petitioner <nd thcee other were grwrted Kronionnati on the basis of recommendation made by the Kramonnati Samiti in its meeting dated 31.7.2003. Order dated 1.8.M03 is in qccordance with the circular dated 25A.20QO. Thus, contention of the petitioner that it should be with effect frora Novembar, 1997 is without c»iy besis. The order is just and proper and needs no interference. 4. Thus, the writ petition is dismissed. No order <s to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Judge tn t