•N T^UK' iJis ;H IC !lini"AT K -^LJUA =?^ ^HF-gM li^^AH. ^ ',>-q^--'^.< /••^..•^'...••••e E.y. R L. Pandey &o Late .3-iri S. D. Pandey, ftfied abajt 53 years, R-esa'Ttl^wa-.king as Qiief Munidpa! Officer, folunidpai Oxineil, Qairn^ R/o CMO Quarter, Sakti astrict: Janjgii^Oiamja (CG). tate of Chhattlsyarh TlTojgh the ^cretaiy, Lfrban ^dmnlstratiai & te'.'eiqiiTient teparfmet D.KS. Btiawan, Raipur '~r;i \'^u1)' Siri fastv^ Ba-hri, ftesertly wcrklng as Officer, Nagar Panchayaf, Takhatpur Qstrict-Biaspur (CG). 226 / 227 OF T XI-HC-78 3^ '<ll'qicl<l, STn<1'l<o, Rl<-ll'tiy ^Wvil sh^ich •'^ •^•l^'-^••• 311^1 Hsiw ('yl^si^r) 200 Sfl^T^lR-ti* gs(T3t1^Tsntfiqi waiWBfroaii^T <ni<itf]41t fiiCTTfffeiA<Rl«l< ^anl^Hsn^r 13.8.2006:- Shri P. Dnvakar, Sr. Adv(] the petitioner. Shri Sushil Dubey, Govt. /| Heard both the counsel. The grievance of the pi appointed as Chief Municipa[ completion of 12 years service'l petitioner has not been promot^c Aftercompletion of 24 years ser^ The petitioner has completed became due after completion completion of 24 years of servicf the petitioner and he has been gj Learned counsel for the dated 17th March 1999 Administration and Developmerjt M.P. the employees after comp| continuing with the same pay s^ pay scale and after completion c|{ further higher scale. When the| even after completion of 12 andj representations before the Chhattisgarh as mentioned in P/4), but nothing has been done| mentioned orders passed by th^ the State of Chhattisgarh a| antl cate with Shri Kunal Das, Advocate for l.dvocate for tb®State. jtitioner in this petition is that he was Qfficer, Class-C on 30-5-77. Even after ^nd in spite of good seroice record the t^d to the next higher grade i.e. Class-B. |ice he has not been promotedto class-A. y? years of service. First Kramonnati |of 12 years service and second after ;^. Even respondent No.2 is the junior to h/en Kramonnati. ^etitioner argued that as per the orders 25-4-2000 passed by the Urban Department of the erstwhile State of fetion of 12 years of service, if they are ^ale, they will be promoted to the higher 24 years service, they will be entitled to A petitioner was not granted -^fen 2 scale 24 years of service, the petitioner made ersttvhile State of M.P. as weli as State of ^ara-5.6 of the petition (Annexure-P/1 to |so far. He further argued that the above- erstwhile State of M.P. are applicable in |so. He further argued that in the XI-HC-78 3fI^T?iTR-li* crarsfi^isnii'o •.>. Bap/e 3^ ^IFIRW, (9Tn<rl'ie, <<TH^T ^i-n^ ^ 200 3)1^1 ratn (l?tl3'si<<8r) CT<IIWB^cT3n^T _r4- der yeajrs circumstances, respondent No.1 made by the petitioner and consid higher scale as per the scale after completion of 12 completion of 24 years of respondent/State has no objection Having heard learned the facts and circumstances of' representations regarding grant a Government Orders dated 17* in para-5.6 of the petition, the peti those representations to the respi respondent No.1 to decide from today. With the direction aforesaid! Consequently, M.(W.)P. &787/2006 also stand disposed of| Parties are entitled for Curti) be directed to decide representation the case of the petitioner for grant of aforementijaned Government orders i.e. first higher service arad next higher scale after to which learned counsel for qiiiici'ifl-f ><i*«iTfftei<il<Ri«i< ^sTf^Tsn^r sarvice coyrjsel for theparties and having regard to (he case, as the petitioner has made f higher pay scale in compliance of the MAreh 1999 and 25-4-2000 as mentioned jtioner is ailowed to give fresh copies of t>ndent No.1 within 15 days and in tum repr^sentation within a period of 3 months the petition stands disposed of. No.404/2005 and i.A. No. 1012/2005 ied copy of this order. Sdl- L.C. Bhadoo judge ^