AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pankaj Purohit, J
By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the indulgence of this Court for a direction to the respondents to provide benefit of selection pay scale as per Rule 13(i) (ii) of the Salary Rules, 2016.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners after putting in 10 years of service were entitled to get selection grade as per the Rules and the selection grade was given to them as per the chart given in paragraph 11 of the writ petition, which is extracted below:-
S.No.
Name of Lecturer
Date of
Appointment
Date of Selection Pay scale
1.
Chandra Singh Chiral
27.07.2011
06.08.2021
2.
Deepak Kumar Tiwari
27.07.2011
06.08.2021
3.
Rajesh Kumar
13.09.2011
13.09.2021
4.
Ramesh Chandra
01.09.2011
12.09.2021
5.
Puran Singh Dhami
27.07.2011
06.08.2021
6.
Prakash Mohan
01.09.2011
14.09.2021
7.
Deepak Joshi
27.07.2011
09.08.2021
8.
Rajesh Pant
27.07.2011
10.08.2021
9.
Dipankar Raj
01.09.2011
14.09.2021
10.
Anand Kumar
27.07.2011
10.08.2021
11.
Anita Ahdikari Basera
27.07.2011
09.08.2021
12.
Sarsa
17.03.2011
30.03.2021
13.
Binni Bhatt
01.09.2011
31.10.2021
14.
Babita Ghrkhaal
17.03.2011
31.03.2021
15.
Bhuwan Chandra Pathak
06.08.2010
14.08.2020
16.
Govind Ballabh Sharma
06.08.2010
19.10.2020
Now grievance of the petitioners is that while giving selection pay scale/grade to the petitioners, one increment was not given to them, which they were entitled as per Rule 13(i) (ii) of the Salary Rules, 2016.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this Court as well as Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has decided several matters, wherein it is observed that petitioners/teachers are entitled to get increment, while giving selection pay scale after completion of ten years of regular and continuous service. He further submits that petitioners moved a representation dated 15.01.2024 to the respondent no.2 praying for the said benefit, as stated above, but till date, no decision has been taken by respondent no.2 on the said representation.
An innocuous prayer has been made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the justice would be met if a direction is issued to the respondent no.2 to decide the aforesaid representation within a stipulated time.
Per contra, learned State Counsel does not dispute the fact that the petitioners are entitled to get the increment while the selection pay scale/grade is given to the petitioners after completion of ten years of regular and continuous service. Furthermore, he has no objection if such a direction is issued by this Court to decide the representation of the petitioner.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the writ petition, the writ petition is disposed-off finally with a direction to the respondent no.2 to decide the representation of the petitioners dated 15.01.2024, annexure-10 to the writ petition, by a reasoned and speaking order, within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. No order as to costs.