Allowed

Vinod Kumar Sharma v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC18 Apr 2024WPS/1805/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenges the denial of a revised pay scale claim under the Chhattisgarh Revision of Pay Rules, 2009. The High Court held that the petitioner had validly exercised his option within the time limit, supported by RTI disclosures, and directed the authorities to grant the dues. The impugned order was set aside.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 22-7-2013 is set aside and respondents directed to calculate and release the petitioner's accrued emoluments and dues based on the revised pay scale.

Vinod Kumar Sharma Vs State Of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

WPS No.1805 of 2014

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 1805 OF 2014

¶6

Vinod Kumar Sharma S/o Late Durga Prasad Sharma Aged About 54 Years Occupation Chemist, Regional Officer, Mines And Mineral Department Raipur C.G.

¶7

R/o G-13, New Block, EAC Colony, Collectorate Campus, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

---- Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Mines And Minerals, New Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

The Director, Department Of Mines And Minerals, Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶12

The Joint Director, Department Of Mines And Minerals, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

The Chief Regional Officer, Department Of Mines And Minerals, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

---- Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner Mr. Y.C. Sharma, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Asim Gopal, Advocate For Respondent/State Mr. Anurag Tripathi, Panel Lawyer

¶16

Order on Board By

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

¶18

19-4-2024

¶19

The present petition is against the order dated 22-7-2013 (Annexure – P/1) passed by the respondent authorities wherein the claim of the petitioner for revised pay scale as per the provisions of the

¶20

¶21

WPS No.1805 of 2014

¶22

Chhattisgarh Revision of Pay Rules, 2009 (for short ‘the Rules, 2009’) was denied.

¶23

(i) Claim of the petitioner is that he was appointed on 29-5-1981 on the post of Assistant Chemist in the respondent Department. The said fact was not denied by the respondent/State. It is also not denied that the petitioner’s service record was without any stigma or any adverse remark or notice calling for explanation whatsoever. During his service tenure, the petitioner posted on deputation in some other department and performance of the petitioner therein also was good. The said fact has also been admitted by the State.

¶24

(ii) The main grievance of the petitioner is that the other employees working as Assistant Chemist in the Department namely; Sharad Gupta & Prafull Sharma have been given the pay scale which is higher than the pay scale of the petitioner. According to the petitioner his pay scale which was fixed w.e.f. 1-8-2012 is ₹ 650010500 and pay band ₹ 9300-34800. The petitioner contended that the similarly situated persons who happen to be his junior on the same post are getting higher pay scale as Sharad Gupta & Prafull Sharma have been given time bound pay scale vide order dated 17-42013 w.e.f. 1-8-2012 whereas the petitioner has been denied the said benefit. The petitioner contended that though he was on deputation in other Department, he should have been extended the benefits of

¶25

¶26

WPS No.1805 of 2014

¶27

pay scale as per Rule 6 of the Rules, 2009. After repatriation from deputation, the aforesaid fact came to his notice that the pay scale of his juniors is higher than to him. The petitioner referred to gradation list (Annexure – P/7) to show that Sharad Gupta & Prafull Sharma are junior to him. The contention of the petitioner is that though he submitted the option (Annexure – P/6), but the same has been denied.

¶28

According to the respondent, the employee seeking upgradation of pay had to submit his option in the prescribed form within one month from issuance of the order dated 6-3-2010 and the same was notified by affixing a copy of the same on the notice Board. According to the respondent, Sharad Gupta & Prafull Sharma had applied for revision of pay scale within stipulated time period of one month from the date of order dated 6-3-2010. However, the petitioner had not applied for the same. Thus, he was not given the benefit of time bound pay scale and the petitioner raised the objection on 14-6-2012, therefore, the claim of the petitioner was denied.

¶29

The Rules, 2009 was published in the official Gazette on 23-3-2009. Rule 5 provides for drawal of pay in the revised structure whereas Rule 6 speaks about exercise of option. Rule 6 is quoted below for ready reference.

¶30

¶31

WPS No.1805 of 2014

¶32

6. Exercise of Option -

¶33

(1) The option under the provisos to rule 5 shall be exercised in writing in the form appended to the schedule-III so as to reach the authority mentioned in sub-rule (2) within three months of date of publication of these rules or where an existing scale has been revised by any order made subsequent to that date, within three months of the date of such order.

¶34

Provided that-

¶35

(i) in the case of a Government servant who is on the date of such publication, or as the case may be, on the date of such order on leave or deputation out of state, the said option shall be exercised in writing so as to reach the said authority within three months of his taking charge of his post under the state Government;

¶36

(ii) where a Government servant is under suspension on the 1^st day of January, 2006, the option may be exercised within three months of the date of his return to his duty if that date is later than the date prescribed in this sub-rule; and

¶37

(iii) those Government servants who have retired after 1^st January, 2006, and before publication of these rules, shall be entitled to exercise their options under this rule.

¶38

(2) The option shall be intimated by the Government servant to the head of his office. The head of office shall submit his own option to his controlling officer.

¶39

(3) If the intimation regarding option is not received within the time mentioned in sub-rule (1), the Government servant shall be deemed to have elected to be governed by the revised

¶40

¶41

WPS No.1805 of 2014

¶42

pay structure with effect from the 1^st day of January, 2006.

¶43

(4) The option once exercised shall be final. Cutting or overwriting in the option shall not be accepted.

¶44

Note 1- Persons whose services were terminated on or after the 1^st January, 2006 and who could not exercise the option within the prescribed time limit, on account of discharge on the expiry of the sanctioned posts, resignation, dismissal or discharge on disciplinary grounds, are entitled to the benefits of this rule.

¶45

Note 2- Persons who have died on or after the 1^st day of January, 2006 and could not exercise the option within prescribed time limit are deemed to have opted for the revised pay structure on and from the 1^st day of January, 2006 or such later date as is found most beneficial by the concerning authority, if the revised pay structure is more favorable and his pay may be fixed accordingly.

¶46

The document obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short ‘the RTI Act’) has been filed by the petitioner, which is an option as per Rule 6 (Schedule III) submitted by the petitioner on 28-4-2009 along with the undertaking. Annexure – P/6 in the original petition contains two pages. The second page is Form V. The RTI reply dated 5-4-2014 shows that the option form in Schedule III and Form 3 Undertaking was placed by the petitioner in the month of April, 2009, however, the second page of Form V (प्रपत्रपांच) was not in the file.

¶47

¶48

WPS No.1805 of 2014

¶49

A close reading of Rule 6 of the Rules, 2009 would show that the option can be exercised in the form appended to Schedule III within three months of the date of publication of the rules or where an existing scale has been revised by any order made subsequent to that date, within three months of the date of such order. The RTI document which has been placed before this Court would show that the petitioner has already submitted his option in the month of April, 2009 and the Rules, 2009 were published on 23-3-2009, therefore, the petitioner had exercised his option as per Rule 6(1) within three months of publication of the Rules, 2009.

¶50

Apart from that Rule 6(3) of the Rules, 2009 envisages that if the intimation regarding option is not received within the time mentioned in sub-rule (1), the Government servant shall be deemed to have elected to be governed by the revised pay structure with effect from the 1^st day of January, 2006.

¶51

From the aforesaid facts, it would show that despite having exercised the option by the petitioner for revised pay scale within the stipulated time his case was wrongly denied. The said fact is established by the document obtained under the RTI Act, which fortifies the fact that the petitioner has exercised the option of revised pay scale in the month of April, 2009 whereas in the return it has been contended by the State that the petitioner has failed to

¶52

¶53

WPS No.1805 of 2014

¶54

exercise the option. Such contradictory plea cannot be synchronized and the documents filed with the petition and the documents obtained under the RTI Act would show that the petitioner having exercised the option of revised pay scale his claim was denied.

¶55

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 22-7-2013 (Annexure – P/1) is set aside. The respondents are directed to calculate the entire emoluments and dues of the petitioner by holding the fact that the petitioner had exercised his option to obtain the pay scale within stipulated time as prescribed in the Rules, 2009 and the benefits accrued be released in favour of the petitioner.

¶56

In the result, the writ petition is allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s).

¶57

Sd/

¶58

(Goutam Bhaduri) Judge

¶59

Gowri

Vinod Kumar Sharma v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar Sharma v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rathram Patel And Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Kishan Lal Sharma And Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Uday Lal Patel Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr.

Om Prakash Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Govind Idnani Vs Vikas Dariyani

Govind Idnani Vs Vikas Dariyani