Quashed

Shailendra Prajapati v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC28 Aug 2024WPS/7001/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HCCHC disposed of multiple writ petitions filed by police officers challenging withdrawal of time scale pay benefits extended under a 2008 Government Circular. The court held the withdrawal arbitrary as arbitrariness violates equal rights and quashed the impugned orders.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed; direction to extend time scale pay benefit; order to refund recovered amounts with 6% interest; continuation of benefit for one petitioner.

Shailendra Prajapati Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH

¶3

2024:CGHC:32966

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 3071 of 2016

¶7

1 - Kamalkant Pandey (K.K.Pandey) S/o. Late Shri R. P. Pandey, Aged About 54 Years Subedar M Office Of Superintendent Of Police, Korba, R/o. M I G- Il86 R. P. Nagar, Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh

¶8

2 - P. S. Netam, S/o. Late Shri B. R. Netam, Aged About 50 Years Subedar M, Office Of Superintendent Of Police, Korba, R/o. Balco Nagar, Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh

¶9

---- Petitioners

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Finance Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶12

2 - Secretary, Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶13

3 - Director General Of Police, Police Headquarters, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶14

4 - Inspector General Of Police Selection, Police Headquarters, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶15

5 - Superintendent Of Police, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh

¶16

6 - Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts And Pension Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶17

---- Respondents

¶18

WITH

¶19

WPS No. 4107 of 2018

¶20

1. Smt. Rajbai Bhargav W/o Shri R. B. Bhargav Aged About 61 Years Suberdar

¶21

-2-

¶22

( M) Head Clerk , Working Under The Office Of Superintendent Of Police ( Telecommunication ) , Bilaspur Zone, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶23

----Petitioner

¶24

Versus

¶25

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Home Finance And Police Affairs , Mahanadi Bhawan New Mantralaya Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶26

2 - The Director General Of Police , Police Head Quarter, Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶27

3 - Superintendent Of Police ( Telecommunication ) Bilaspur Zone , District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶28

4 - The Joint Director, Treasury , Account And Pension Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶29

---- Respondents

¶30

WITH

¶31

WPS No. 6637 of 2018

¶32

R. S. Patel S/o Late Shri B. L. Patel Aged About 49 Years Occupation Assistant Sub Inspector (M), Posted At Office Of Superintendent Of Police, District Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶33

----Petitioner

¶34

Versus

¶35

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Home, Finance And Police Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶36

2 - The Director General Of Police Police Head Quarter Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶37

3 - The Inspector General Of Police Bilaspur Range, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶38

4 - Superintendent Of Police Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶39

---- Respondents

¶40

WITH

¶41

WPS No. 7001 of 2018

¶42

¶43

1 - Shailendra Prajapati S/o Shri Lallan Prajapati Aged About 47 Years Occupation Sub Inspector (M), Posted At- Office Of Superintendent Of Police, Baloda Bazar, District- Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, District- Baloda BazarBhatapara, Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh

¶44

----Petitioner

¶45

Versus

¶46

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Home Finance And Police Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶47

2 - The Director General Of Police Police Head Quarter, Raipur, DistrictRaipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶48

3 - Superintendent Of Police Sukma District- Sukma Chhattisgarh.

¶49

4 - Superintendent Of Police Baloda Bazar, District- Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

¶50

---- Respondents

¶51

WITH

¶52

WPS No. 4263 of 2018

¶53

1. Santosh Kumar Shrivastava (Died) Through Lrs As Per Honble Court Order Dated 12-04-2023

¶54

2. Smt. Jyoti Shrivastava W/o Late Santosh Kumar Shrivastava Aged About 62 Years R/o House No. 41, Shrishti Colony, Kamala College, Road, Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh)

¶55

----Petitioner

¶56

Versus

¶57

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Home Finance And Police Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶58

2 - The Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶59

3 - Superintendent Of Police, P. T. S. Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

¶60

4 - The Joint Director, Treasury, Account And Pension Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents

-4-

WITH

WPS No. 4115 of 2018

¶65

Smt. Sunita Dhariya W/o Shri Sudin Kumar, Aged About 60 Years Suberdar (M)/ Accountant, Working Under The Office Of Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶66

----Petitioner

¶67

Versus

¶68

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Home, Finance And Police Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶69

2 - The Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶70

3 - Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶71

4 - The Joint Director, Treasury, Account And Pension, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶72

---- Respondents

¶73

WITH

¶74

WPS No. 2930 of 2020

¶75

K.K. Pandey S/o Late Shri R.P. Pandey Aged About 60 Years Occupation - Inspector (M), Working Under The Superintendent Of Police Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶76

----Petitioner

¶77

Versus

¶78

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Home And Police Affairs And Finance, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralay, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶79

2 - Director General Of Police Police Head Quarter, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶80

3 - The Superintendent Of Police Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶81

4 - Joint Director Treasury Account And Pension, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶82

---- Respondents

¶83

¶84

For respective Petitioners : Mr.Prakash Tiwari, Advocate and Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate holding the brief of Ms. Naushina Afrin Ali, Advocate For State : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy. G.A.

¶85

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶86

Order on Board

¶87

29.08.2024

¶88

In this batch of petitions, the petitioners, who are holding the post of Subedar (M) in the Home Police Department (Ministerial) are claiming time scale pay according to the Circular issued by the State Government dated 28.04.2008 and further prayer is to quash the orders dated 16.06.2014, 29.08.2014, 14.06.2016, 13.07.2017,14.07.2017 and 20.05.2020, respectively, issued by the respondent authorities.

¶89

2. The facts of the present case are that the petitioners were initially appointed to the post of Sub-Inspector (M) and after that, they were promoted to the post of Subedar (M). On 28.04.2008, a Circular was issued by the State Government with regard to the grant of time scale pay to all civil servants and the same was to be effective from 1st of April, 2006. The benefit of time scale pay was extended to the petitioners by the Department vide order dated 23.07.2015 but later on, the same was withdrawn on different dates on the ground that it was extended due to a mistake of the Department. After that, one of the petitioners namely; Smt. Rajbai Bhargav filed a writ petition bearing WPS No.3666/2016 before

¶90

-6-

¶91

this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 31.03.2017 in the light of the order passed in the matter of Francis Xavier Beck and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others and other connected matters in WPS No. 4523 of 2014 . A Committee was constituted to examine the petitioners’ claim and the said Committee was granted three months’ time to examine the issue and take an appropriate decision in the light of the order passed in the matter of Francis Xavier Beck (supra).

¶92

The matter was examined by the Committee and vide order dated 14.07.2017, the same was declined only on the ground that in the matter of Francis Xavier Beck (supra) , there is no whisper with regard to extending the benefit of time scale pay. Against that order, the petitioners have preferred these petitions.

¶93

Mr. Tiwari and Mr. Kumrani, the learned counsels appearing for the respective petitioners argued that the benefit of time scale pay was extended according to the Circular issued by the State Government dated 28.04.2018. They further argued that this Circular specifically states that the benefit was to be effective from 1st of April, 2006 and it would be applicable to those civil servants who have not availed any other special benefit. They also argued that in para 3 of the Circular, it is further clarified that the benefit of time scale pay would be granted after completion of 10 years of service. They submitted that the benefit was extended to the petitioners but later on, the same was withdrawn without assigning

¶94

¶95

any reason and against that order, WPS No. 3666/2016 was preferred by one of the petitioners namely, Smt. Rajbai Bhargav before this Court and the matter was referred to the Committee to decide the same. They further contended that in the matter of Francis Xavier Beck (supra) , the issue of time scale pay was involved and the same is mentioned in para 9 of that order. They also contended that the petition was disposed of with a direction to constitute a Committee and the petitioners therein were permitted to make representations before the said Committee. It was also observed that if the case of the petitioners is similar to the case of Abdul Nawab Khan and Others Vs. the State of Chhattisgarh and Others, WPS No.4563 of 2006 , they would be entitled to get all admissible benefits. They further submitted that the petitioners were extended the benefit of time scale pay pursuant to the decision taken by the Committee dated 14.07.2017 but later on, the same was withdrawn. They also submitted that the petitioners are entitled to get the benefit of time scale pay according to the Circular dated 28.04.2008 which has not been modified, altered or cancelled by the State Government yet. It is stated that the time scale pay was also increased from time to time by the State Government as mentioned in the earlier sanction orders. They further stated that on wrong premises the claim of the petitioners has been declined therefore the decision of the State Authorities is erroneous and bad in law.

¶96

-8-

¶97

On the other hand, the learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners. He submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to get the benefit of time scale pay and the same was clarified in the Circular dated 28.04.2008 itself. He further submitted that as there is no whisper with regard to time scale pay in the matter of Francis Xavier Beck (supra), the same has not been extended to the petitioners and the representations have been rejected. He lastly submitted that these petitions deserve to be dismissed.

¶98

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record.

¶99

Admittedly, the petitioners who are holding the posts of Subedar (M) / Inspector (M) in the Home Police Department were extended the benefit of time scale pay pursuant to the Circular dated 28.04.2008 with effect from 1st of April, 2006 but later on, the benefit was withdrawn on the ground that the same was extended due to mistake of the Department. One of the petitioners namely, Smt. Rajbai Bhargav filed a writ petition before this Court and the same was disposed of with a direction to the State Government to constitute a Committee and examine the matter afresh in the light of the findings recorded in the matter of Francis Xavier Beck (supra) in WPS No.4523 of 2014.

¶100

In the matter of Francis Xavier Beck (supra), the issue involved

¶101

¶102

was to grant ad hoc pay and increase of Rs.50/-, Rs.60/- & Rs.70/-, respectively, which was made admissible to the ministerial employees of the Home Department by virtue of the order passed by the erstwhile unified State of Madhya Pradesh on 28.08.2000. In para 9 of that writ petition, the contention was made by the learned counsel appearing for the State that the matter relates to the grant of the pay scale, arrears etc., therefore, the concurrence of the Finance Department would be necessary and finally, the matter was disposed of directing the State to constitute a Committee and decide the issue.

¶103

In the present case, the benefit of time scale pay was extended pursuant to the Circular issued by the State Government to all civil servants of the State of Chhattisgarh after the concurrence of the Finance Department, therefore, in the present batch of petitions, there was no need to obtain the concurrence of the Finance Department as it appears that the same was already approved by the Finance Department. A perusal of the order passed in the matter of Francis Xavier Beck (supra) would show that in that matter, the issue of time scale pay was not involved and the same is evident from the opening paras of the order passed in that batch of petitions but the direction was issued to the State Government to constitute a Committee and extend the benefit.

¶104

Earlier a Committee was constituted and a report was submitted in favour of the civil servants of the State of Chhattisgarh to extend

¶105

-10-

¶106

the benefit of time scale pay. The same was executed and the benefit was extended to many civil servants but later on, those orders were withdrawn on the ground that the orders were issued due to a mistake of the Department. In the earlier round of litigation, a direction was issued to the State Government to constitute a Committee and examine the matter in the light of the Francis Xavier Beck (supra). The petitioners and other similar civil servants made representations but representations were rejected only on the ground that there is no whisper with regard to time scale pay in the order of Francis Xavier Beck (supra) and Abdul Nawab Khan (supra) .

¶107

10. In the opinion of this Court, there is no whisper with regard to time scale pay in those orders even though the petitioners are entitled to get time scale pay by virtue of the Circular issued by the State Government on 28.04.2008 which has not been modified, altered or cancelled yet by any of the superior authorities. Earlier the benefit was extended and later on, the same was withdrawn without assigning any reason. As the petitioners are civil servants of the State of Chhattisgarh, they have the right to get time scale pay according to the Rules, Regulations and Circulars issued by the State Government from time to time and such benefits cannot be withdrawn in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and thus, the orders impugned issued in this regard by the respondent authorities are hereby quashed. The

¶108

1 1

¶109

respondent authorities are directed to extend the benefit of time scale pay to the petitioners which was extended earlier according to their entitlement strictly in accordance with the Rules and Circulars issued by the State Government. If the amount of time scale pay extended to any of the petitioners has been recovered, the same shall be refunded to them along with interest @ 6% per annum forthwith.

¶110

11.In WPS No.3071 of 2016, the petitioners are still getting the benefit of time scale pay, therefore, the same shall continue without any hindrance.

¶111

12.With the aforesaid observation(s), these petitions are disposed of .

¶112

Sd/-

¶113

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)

¶114

Judge

¶115

Rekha

Shailendra Prajapati v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shailendra Prajapati v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dipak Singh Thakur Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Janki Bai And Anr. Vs The Chairman Cum Managing Director And Ors.

Mahesh Prasad Gupta Vs Municipal Corporation, Raipur

Smt. Sunita Dhariya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Santosh Kumar Shrivastava (Died) Through LRs Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shailesh Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh