HIGH COURT OF CHHATT!SGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 2934 of 2006 Petitioner Madan’ Kumar Mishra. S/o Shri Shivnandan Mishra. Aged about 49 years, Oscupation Pump Operater. R/o irrigation Colony, Jangii', District- Janjgir-Ghampa (6.6.) Versus Respondents 1. State of Chhatti’sgarh, Through the Secretary. General Administration Department. i D.K.S. Bhawan. Mantralaya. Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Secretary, Department of Water Resource, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantrataya. Raipur. (C.G .) 3. The Engineer in Chief, Water Resources Department Raipur, District Raipur.(C.G.) 4. The Chief Engineer, Minimaie Hashdeo Bango Dam Division, Bilaspur, (6.6.) WRIT PETL‘LOIN UNDhR ARTicLE ' 2Z§I227 OF THE cONSTlTUTiON Single Bench : Hon’ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Shri Aiok Devangan. Advocate 'for the petitioner. Smt. Smitha Ghai. Pane! Lawyer for the respondents. W ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 12th day of March, 2008) 1. The case of rhe petitioner is that he was appointed on the post of Pump Operator in the Water Resources Depaitment on 19.1.1988 at Korba. Thereatter, he was posted in Hasdev Nahar Department No.3 Janigir. The post of Pump Operator was inciuded in Ciass-itl caste since 1956and the pay scale was equivatent to the pay scale of Cterk i.e. Assistant Grade -iil. The benefit of 5‘“ Pay Commission was granted to the employees of erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh and , thé pay scaie of Ciass-m category Clerk was Rs. 3050—7$3950-80- 4500. This pay scaEe was gianted ta the similarly 5ituated employees in other departments (Annexure P12 and PI3) but the pay of the petitioner was revised §n the pay scale of Rs. 2750-70-3000-754400, thereby the petittoner is deprived of the actual beneht i.e. the Pay Scale of Rs. 3050-4500. Being aggrieved by the petitioner submitted representations (Annexure P/4 and PIS). which are stili pending. Learned counsel appearing for the petitionersubmits that similar facts were involved in Writ Petition No. 2628/2006 (Sharad Kumar Shrivastava Vs, 3tate of Chhattisgarh & others) which was disposed of by this Court on 12.6.2006, wherein the petitioner was allowed to make a detailed representation and the concerned respondent was directed to consider and decide the representation within a period of two weeks. He prays that this petition be disposed of in the same line. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and having regard to the tacts situation, the petitioner is atiowed to make a detaiied representation to the concerned authority within a period of 15 a days from today, which’ snail be considered and decided. in accordance with law, by the concerned authority, as early as possible, preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the representation along with a copy of this order. With the above direction, this petition stands disposed of. Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge