Smt. Rajmat Masiyare Vs State Govt. Of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Smt. Rajmat Masiyare Vs State Govt. Of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petitioner declared entitled to benefit of regular pay scale from the date of initial appointment; respondents directed to do the needful within a period of three months.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of regular pay scale from the date of initial appointment notwithstanding that her initial appointment was as a trainee for a period of two years. +1 more

Court's answer

The order dated 16.11.2016 is quashed to the extent by which the petitioner has been denied the benefit of regular pay scale from the date of initial appointment.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner is held entitled to the benefit of regular pay scale from the date of initial appointment.

Key takeaways

Having granted the benefit of regular pay scale to similarly placed teachers appointed under the same appointment order, there is absolutely no justification for denying the said benefit to the petitioner; such denial is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service law - Pay fixation - Regular pay scale - Petitioner, appointed on 30.06.1976 under an appointment order under which appointees first served as trainees, was denied benefit of regular pay scale from the date of initial appointment by order dated 16.11.2016 on the ground that her initial appointment was as a trainee and not as Assistant Teacher - Teachers appointed under the very same appointment order (Poonadevi Mandavi, Bhagwati Ram, Khilanand, Shivdayal) had already been granted the benefit pursuant to directions issued by this Court in WPS No. 1242 of 2008 - Held: denial of the benefit to the petitioner while granting it to similarly placed teachers is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; order dated 16.11.2016 quashed to that extent; petitioner held entitled to regular pay scale from the date of initial appointment; respondents directed to comply within three months - Writ petition allowed (Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.).

1

2025:CGHC:34419

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPS No. 7132 of 2017

Smt. Rajmat Masiyare W/o Shri Ramlal Masiyare Aged About 61 Years Head Mistress , Government Primary School Khairwahi Post And Thana Doundi . District Balod Chhattisgrh. , Chhattisgarh

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1. State Govt. Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary School Education Department Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh

2. District Education Officer , Balod District Balod Chhattisgarh.

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner	: Mr. Somkant Verma, Advocate
For State	: Mr. Shubham Bajpai, P.L.

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order On Board

21-07-2025

1) Petitioner's earlier writ petition bearing WPS No. 2931 of 2016 where she had prayed for benefit of grant of regular pay scale from the date of initial appointment was disposed of vide order dated 15.07.2016 directing petitioner to approach the committee constituted by the State Government referred to in order dated 18.02.2015 passed in case of Gopal Ram Sonwani Vs. State of

2

Chhattisgarh & Anr.

2) Petitioner's representation has been dismissed vide order dated 16.11.2016 [Annexure P/1] on the ground that she was not appointed as Assistant Teacher, but in fact her initial appointment was as a trainee for a period of two years and was to be posted as teacher after one year of the training, therefore, she is not entitled to be granted benefit of regular pay scale. Similar plea has been raised in the return filed by the State.

3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similarly placed teachers who were also appointed in the same manner as a trainee for the first year and thereafter as a teacher on successful completion of one year training have been granted benefit of regular pay scale after similar direction issued to the respondents in their respective writ petitions. He would submit that Poonadevi Mandavi, Bhagwati Ram, Khilanand abd Shivdayal were appointed by the same appointment order under which the petitioner was appointed in services and the said persons have been granted benefit of regular pay scale pursuant to directions issued by this Court in WPS No. 1242 of 2008.

4) Since, the teachers who were appointed by the same appointment order by which the petitioner was also appointed on 30.06.1976 have already been granted benefit of regular pay scale, there is absolutely no justification for denying the said benefit to the petitioner. Having granted benefit of regular pay scale to similarly placed teachers, denial of the said benefit to the petitioner is in

3

violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

5) Accordingly, the order dated 16.11.2016, to the extent by which the petitioner has been denied benefit of regular pay scale from the date of initial appointment is quashed. The petitioner is held entitled to the benefit of regular pay scale from the date of initial appointment.

6) The respondents shall do the needful within a period of three months from today. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed .

Sd/(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

Ajinkya

Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.07.22 10:36:42 +0530