Disposed¶8

Jaishankar Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC10 May 2026WPS/1020/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second time pay scale; completion of 20 years of service; 100% grant-in-aid institution; Upper Division Teacher; unauthorized absence of 407 days; no show-cause notice issued; no penalty inflicted; circular dated 28.04.2008; subsequent circular dated 23.09.2009; quashing of order dated 09.12.2021; reconsideration of claim within 120 days; Mata Rukamani Sewa Sansthan Samiti; Jaishankar Pandey; WPS No. 1020 of 2022; High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur; Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey; 2026:CGHC:22028; NAFR.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 09.12.2021 quashed; respondent No. 3 directed to reconsider the petitioner's claim for second time pay scale in light of circulars dated 28.04.2008 and 23.09.2009, preferably within 120 days. ¶8

Jaishankar Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who completed 20 years of service on 14.12.2013 under respondent No. 3 (a 100% grant-in-aid institution), is entitled to second time pay scale w.e.f. 14.12.2013 pursuant to circular dated 28.04.2008. +1 more

¶2

Ratio / Principle

No document was produced by respondent No. 3 to substantiate that any show-cause notice was ever issued to the petitioner for his unauthorized absence, and there is no material to establish that any penalty was inflicted upon him on that account.

¶7

Key takeaways

The observation with regard to the petitioner's absence recorded by respondent No. 3 in its order dated 09.12.2021 has no foundation and is not sustainable in the eyes of law; accordingly, the order dated 09.12.2021 is quashed.ratio¶7
Respondent No. 3 is directed to reconsider the petitioner's claim in light of the circular dated 28.04.2008 and the subsequent circular dated 23.09.2009, expeditiously, preferably within a period of 120 days.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, WPS No. 1020 of 2022, decided 11.05.2026 (Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.): The petitioner, appointed Upper Division Teacher on 01.11.1993 under respondent No. 3 — a 100% grant-in-aid institution — claimed second time pay scale w.e.f. 14.12.2013 on completing 20 years of service, pursuant to circular dated 28.04.2008. Respondent No. 3 rejected the claim solely on the ground that the petitioner had remained absent from service for 407 days. The Court found that no show-cause notice was ever issued and no penalty was ever inflicted for the alleged unauthorized absence, held that the absence observation in the order dated 09.12.2021 had 'no foundation' and was not sustainable in the eyes of law, quashed the order dated 09.12.2021, and directed respondent No. 3 to reconsider the claim in light of the circulars dated 28.04.2008 and 23.09.2009, preferably within 120 days. Petition disposed of.

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.05.12 13:52:55 +0530

¶3

2026:CGHC:22028

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 1020 of 2022

¶7

Jaishankar Pandey S/o Late Sakal Deo Pandey Aged About 53 Years R/o Near Maharshi Aashram Hatkachura, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Bakward Class Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶10

Commissioner Tribal Development Indiravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶11

3. Secretary, Mata Rukamani Sewa Sansthan Samiti Dimrapal Tahsil And District Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh.

¶12

... Respondent(s)

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr. S.P. Kale, Advocate For State : Mr. Abhyuday Tripathi, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

11.05.2026

¶17

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):-

¶18

“10.1 The Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records leading to the impugned in-action for its kind perusal.

¶19

10.2 Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the letter dated 09/02/2021 (Annexure-P/1).

¶20

¶21

10.3 Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to directing the Respondent to make Payment of regular annual increment from year 2000 and time scale from the 24/12/2013 with and continue to pay regularly in the interest of justice.

¶22

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

¶23

10.5 Cost of the Petition be also awarded.”

¶24

Facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Upper Division Teacher under the respondent No. 3 vide order dated 01.11.1993. He completed 20 years of service on 14.12.2013, and thereafter, moved an application claiming therein second time pay scale pursuant to circular dated 28.04.2008. It is admitted fact that respondent No. 3 is 100% grant-in-aid institution. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondent No. 3 on the ground that he remained absent from service for 407 days. The petitioner is claiming second time pay scale w.e.f. 14.12.2013.

¶25

Mr. S.P. Kale, learned Advocate would submit that the petitioner was never remained absent for 407 days. He would contend that no show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner for his unauthorized absence, and no penalty was ever inflicted, thus, the observation made in the impugned order dated 09.12.2021 is baseless and erroneous. He would further contend that according to the circular dated 28.04.2008, the petitioner is entitled to get second time pay scale after completion of 20 years of service from 14.12.2013. He would pray to allow this petition.

¶26

On the other hand, learned Advocates appearing for respondents would oppose. Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate appearing for respondent No. 3 would submit that as the petitioner remained absent for 407 days during his

¶27

¶28

service tenure, therefore, he has not been found entitled to get the benefit of second time pay scale. He would contend that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that he never remained absent from service. He would submit that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶29

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

¶30

Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Upper Division Teacher under respondent No. 3 on 01.11.1993. He completed 20 years of service on 14.12.2013. Respondent No. 3 is a 100% grant-in-aid institution, and the circular issued by the State Government dated 28.04.2008 applies to the said institution. The petitioner’s claim for the second time pay scale from 14.12.2013 has been rejected only on the ground that he remained absent from service for a period of 407 days.

¶31

The respondent No. 3 has filed reply, but no document has been produced to substantiate that any show-cause notice was ever issued to the petitioner for his unauthorized absence. There is no material to establish that, at any point of time, any penalty was inflicted upon the petitioner on account of his unauthorized absence. Thus, the observation with regard to absence recorded by respondent No. 3 in its order dated 09.12.2021 has no foundation, and therefore, the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the order dated 09.12.2021 is hereby quashed . The respondent No. 3 is directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner in light of the circular dated 28.04.2008, and subsequent circular dated 23.09.2009 expeditiously, preferably within a period of 120 days.

¶32