/l. G-^ / ^) ite 8^.rg©!n] IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G^ W.P. (S) N0. ^!^-<T /2011 PETITIONER ^x^ ^^ .^^f<> ^.>^:;\'.^" ,^yo?-y' ^y...-""" ^'^' .'••"" ^•""" RESPONDENTS ^ Prem Lal Namdeo, aged about 67 years, S/o Late Shri Shobharamji Namdeo, retired Head Master, Government Primary School Tarbahar, Block- Bilha, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS :1. r State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Director, Public Instructions, Raipur(C.G.) . Joint Director, Treasury, Account & Pension, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) District Education Officer, Bilaspur (C.G.) Block Education Officer, Bilha,Distt.BJlaspur (C.G.) 2. 3. /" 4. 5. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 Q£THE CONSTITUION OF IN DIA 3?T^T ^? ^lNT ^sn S?T^T ^^ic^ ^y NP^fT %»*11<$» 'S^ ^WW^, 'E?T)1'M4t(o, ?s|dl<-!^< wl^)^^^!] •^200 3Tr^¥T'q^T (^f^T^) ^^fTW^ft^ a?r^r SB: 20-08-2011 Shri K. S. Pawar, counse! for tl Ms. Sunita Jain, Panei La\| advance oopy. Heard. Petitioner's grievance as ve| petitioner did not receive any higher from 1967. til! his date of retireme.nt I soale promotion under various gov^ 14-01-2003 and 03-10-2008. Later or,, oircular on 11-01-2010 (Annexure P^ those government se^ants who hav| the benefit of scaie promotion und^ granted the benefit and their pensi^ ¥S. B^ decided on 29-08-2006, this Court promotion as contained in circular d^ that if an empioyee has not receive(| time, he woujd be entitied to secoj years. Therefore, the daim of the| frivotous. As the soheme of the gov^rnment examined by this Court aiso in t^ respondents deserve to be directed for grant of soaie promotion in accoi|< ^l^f^ft^ 'RTH^f ^ 'fe^ 'ifa^K ^'3:tRR3TT^I |hrjvastava^_J» ie petitioner ^yer for the State/respondents on rtiEated I'n this petition is that the 3ay scale in his entire service career i.e. 2006, though, he was entltied to mment circuiars dated 19-04-1999, i, the State Government has issued a 1), by which, it has been ordered that ^ died/retired, but were not extended ?r the government scheme be also ^n be revised. In the case of R. S. fdOthers (W.P.(S)No.2805 las examined the soheme of soaie ted 19-04-1999 and it has been heid higher pay scafe during his service id Kramonnati after a period of 24 petjtbner does not appear to be exists whioh has aiso been B case of (supra), the o consider the case of the petitjoner dance with the circuSar dated 19-04- | ^g8S| j| \.^sy' W^T ^FT R^l<^ ^T[ 3?I^T ^"RN? ¥^<TOT^tel3n^f ^-^ Tumane ^// <t ^iT^pn^ ^^i ^WW^^€tWTS,'f^TRTy ^..w;P.£^..rA!:2^S&.l. ^Ti^T^^K ('^3^?) 1999, 14-01-2003 and 03-10-2008 ^ %S.Vem?a(supra). Considering that the petitioner 'tllat the respondent No.4-DistrJct E^j claim and pass necessary orders wit] and take steps for extending the 11-01-2010 (Annexure P-4) without urj Neediess to emphasize, if ^ redressed, he would be at iiberty to t^ be avaiiabSe to him underthe law. "sR^feNN ^lP^t ^f fe^ iRn^i^ iFsf^TCT^r 3 aiso in the iight of the Judgment is a retjred employee, it is directed iucation Officer shajt consjder the 1 regards to petitionerls entitiemerrt ^eneflt in terms of ojrou!ar dated duedeiay. rievance of the petitjoner is not ke recourseto such remedy as may Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ^IW^^^^uil^, <I^J^lic|—FS/140—2/2011—1,50,000.