‘ l l 1 ‘ \ ‘ \ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGA H AT BILAS Cbram: Hon’ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra & i Hon’ble Shri R.N. Chlandrakar, JJ Writ Appeal No.82 of 2011 Amarnath Katiyar, S/o Ujagar Lal Katiyar, aged about 41 years, Occupation Assjstant Grade-ll, Office of Chhattisgarh, Chief Rgipur ‘ Electoral Office, Appeliant Petitioner Vs. Respondents 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary; Law: Department of DKS Bhawan, Raipur'QCG) 2. Chief Eiectoraii Officer, ChhattiSgarh Raipur, ' DKS» BhaWan (indrawati Block), Raipur (CG) Pr‘esent: Smt. Hamida Siddique, counsel for the appellant. ‘ Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Dy. G.A. for the State. oRAL JuoaMENT (28.32011) z 1.. Heard on l.A. No.1, application for condonation of delay in i filing this appeal. 2.‘ For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed and delay of 255 days in filing this appeal is hereby condoned. 3.‘ Also heard on admission. 4.: The appellant was/promoted on the post of Assistant Grade- ll w.e.f. 24~5-2002 vide order dated 176—2007. His representation for payment of arrears of promotional salary from time to time with effect from 24—52002 was not k decided, however, in compliance of the order dated 9‘“ J December, 2009 passed in Writ Petition (S) No.7202/2009, his representation dated 3-11-2009 was decided on 11-2- 2010 and he was informed that he is not entitled for any ' . arrears for the period from 24—5-2002 to 16-5-2007 as he did not discharge the duties of the promoted post for the aforesaid eriod' and his writ etiion has been further / ,ILQ PUR p pt 1 ‘ ' dismissed by the Iearned' Singie Judge by the impugned order. Smt. Hamida Siddique, learned counsel for the‘ appeilant . ' vehemently argued that the appelant was deprivedtwm promotion on account of lapses on the part of the officers of the respondent whereas the appellant was entitled for t promotion w.e.f. 24—5-2002. Tihe above error was subsequently rectified vide order dated 17-5-2007 whereby he was promoted with effect from 24-5-2002 on the'vacant ; 'post of Assistant Grade-ll. However, the claim of arrears of ‘ ; salary from 24-5—2002 to 16-5-20Q7 was rejected by the ' impugned order of Annexure-P/1 and learned Single Judge has also dismissedthe writpetition by the impugned order. Learned Single Judge, considering the settled principles of law that an employee is entitled to pay scale of a promoted post from the date the employee-starts working on promoted post and also considering the fact that the appellant started working on the post of Assistant Grade-ll pursuant to the order dated 17-5-2007, held that the claim of the petitioner/ ' appellant for grant of pay scale w.e.f. 24-5-2002 from which the petitioner/appellant has not worked on the promoted post is without any foundation and baseless. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and after going through the impugned order, we are of the opinion that there is no illegality in the impugned order. 8. The appeal is without any substance, the same deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Ju‘dge ‘ x z /