Saiyed Haider Ali Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 2623 of 2018

¶5

1 - Saiyed Haider Ali S/o Late Shri Saiyed Yaqub Ali Aged About 58 Years Presently Posted And Working As Stenographer, District And Sessions Judge, Bastar At Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶6

... Petitioner(s)

¶7

versus

¶8

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Law And Legislative Affairs, Mahanadi Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

2 - High Court Of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, Through The Registrar General High Court Of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

3 - District And Sessions Judge, South Bastar, Dantewada Chhattisgarh., District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh

¶11

4 - District And Sessions Judge, Bastar At Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶12

5 - Divisional Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Bastar At Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶13

--- Respondent(s)

¶14

(Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)

¶15

For Petitioner	: Mr.Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate
For State	: Ms.Shailja Shukla, Dy. G.A.
For Respondents No.1 to 4	: Mr.Shashank Thakur, Advocate

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶17

Order on Board

¶18

10.07.2025

¶19

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

¶20

“i. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside the impugned orders dated 17/1/2018 bearing No.21/III-13-1/2003 passed by the respondent No.3 along with the amended order dated 17/1/2018 bearing No.22/II-11-1-40 passed by the respondent No.3.

¶21

2

¶22

ii. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to allow the grade pay of Rs.4300/- in favour of the petitioner w.e.f. 18/6/2010 along with all consequential benefits.

¶23

iii Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner.

¶24

iv. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.”

¶25

Mr. Khetrapal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that initially, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Lower Division Clerk in the year 1985 under respondent No.4. He would further submit that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Steno Clerk vide order dated 12.06.1993 and thereafter he was promoted to the post of Stenographer vide order dated 29/30.11.2000. He would also submit that the District and Sessions Judge, Bastar, Jagdalpur (C.G.) extended the benefit of time bound pay scale to the petitioner vide order dated 08.07.2015 with effect from 01.04.2006. He would contend that an objection was raised to the effect that the petitioner had not completed 10 years of service on the said post, therefore, that order was modified and the said benefit was extended with effect from 01.04.2010. He would also contend that without assigning any reason and without the issuance of a notice, the said benefit was withdrawn and the pay scale of the petitioner was reduced vide order dated 17.01.2018 (Annexure P/1). He would also submit that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Stenographer in the year 2000 and after completion of 10 years of service on the said post, the benefit of time bound pay scale was extended by the concerned District Judge. He would lastly submit that the order impugned is bad in law and is liable to be quashed.

¶26

On the other hand, Mr. Thakur, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 4 would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Khetrapal. He would

¶27

3

¶28

submit that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Stenographer on 22.09.2012 and as he had not completed 10 years of service on the said post, therefore, the order of grant of time bound pay scale was recalled. He would argue that according to the circular/directions issued by the Finance and Planning Department and the High Court, an employee would be entitled to receive time bound pay scale after completion of 10 years of service on a particular post. He would also submit that the present petition is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed.

¶29

Ms. Shukla, the learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State would support the contentions made by Mr. Thakur.

¶30

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

¶31

Though it is argued by Mr. Khetrapal that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Stenographer on 29/30.11.2000 but the said order would reveal that the petitioner was posted to the post of Clerk Steno and his pay scale was revised. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Stenographer vide order dated 22.09.2012. The circulars issued by the State of Chhattisgarh would clearly reveal that a Government servant would be entitled to receive time bound pay scale after completion of 10 years of service on a particular post. The petitioner had not completed 10 years of service on the post of Stenographer and due to inadvertence, the benefit of time bound pay scale was extended, therefore, it was withdrawn. The order Annexure P/5 dated 29/30.11.2000 would show that the pay scale of the petitioner was revised and he was granted the benefit of pay scale of Rs.4500-125-7000, whereas, he was entitled to get the pay grade of Rs. 2800/-.

¶32

Taking into consideration the fact that the pay scale of the petitioner was revised by the District and Sessions Judge, Bastar, Jagdalpur vide order

¶33

4

¶34

dated 29/30.11.2000 due to a mistake, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the order impugned does not suffer from any illegality. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed .

¶35

It is made clear that after completion of 10 years of service on a particular post, the petitioner would be entitled to receive the time bound pay scale.

¶36

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶37

Rekha

Saiyed Haider Ali v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saiyed Haider Ali v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhawarlal Barle Vs Union of India

State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. Vs Dulichand Lodhi And Anr.

Babulal Vs Union of India

Kripal Singh Vs Krishna Kumar

Ghanshyam Vs Rupranjan

Ramesh Jain Vs State of Chhattisgarh