AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
9 paragraphs · 296 wordsRakesh Mohan Pandey, J
1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:-
i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to grant third kramonnati after completion of 30 years of service as per policy of the state government within stipulate time, in the interest of justice.
(ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.
2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was initially engaged under respondent No. 3 on daily wages in the academic year 1985-86 and his services were regularized vide order dated 30.7.1996. He contends that petitioner has completed 30 years of service but he has not been extended the benefit of third time pay scale till date. He argues that petitioner may be permitted to make a detailed representation before respondent No. 3, who in turn may be directed to decide such representation expeditiously.
3) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents would oppose. They submit that petitioner has not completed 30 years of regular service therefore he has not been extended the benefit of third time pay scale. They contend that this petition is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.
4) Heard.
5) Having considered the limited prayer made by Mr. Dewangan, this petition is hereby being disposed reserving liberty in favor of petitioner to make a detailed representation within period of 30 days before respondents No. 2 and 3, who in turn are directed to consider and decide such representation, if so preferred by the petitioner by way of speaking order(s) within period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of such representation.
6) With the aforesaid direction, this petition stands disposed.