Dismissed¶34

Chandrashekhar Gaikwad v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr.

Chhattisgarh HC18 Jan 2026WPS/1382/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second time-bound pay scale; first time scale; Finance Instructions dated 28.04.2008; clause 15; Schedule-II; clarification dated 10.08.2009; Kramonnati scheme beneficiaries; Non-Medical Supervisor (NMS) 100% promotional post; direct recruitment posts only; claim after retirement barred by delay and laches; representation rejected by Director, Directorate of Health Services; State of Chhattisgarh Health Department; Chhattisgarh High Court service matter; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Clause 15 of the circular dated 28.04.2008 clearly provides that a separate decision would be taken with respect to the specific class of employees not mentioned in Schedule-II, which covers employees benefited under the Kramonnati scheme. ¶31

Chandrashekhar Gaikwad Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr. — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, whose post of Non-Medical Supervisor is a 100% promotional post not included in Schedule-II of the Finance Instructions dated 28.04.2008 and who was benefited under the Kramonnati scheme, was entitled to second time-bound pay scale under the circular dated 28.04.2008 and the clarification dated 10.08.2009. +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

¶31

Ratio / Principle

The clarification dated 10.08.2009 contains no decision as per clause 15 of the circular dated 28.04.2008; the department therefore rightly held that the petitioner's post of Non-Medical Supervisor (NMS), being a 100% promotional post not included in Schedule-II of the circular dated 28.04.2008, does not carry any time-bound pay scale, and the petitioner is not entitled to it.

¶31

Key takeaways

Though the circular came on 28.04.2008 and the clarification on 10.08.2009, the petitioner did not claim the benefit during his tenure; he claimed it in 2013 after retiring in June 2012 (writ petition filed 2015), and his claim suffers from delay and laches.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (WPS No. 1382 of 2015, High Court of Chhattisgarh, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J., decided 19/01/2026) — Dismissed. A retired Non-Medical Supervisor (appointed 12.04.1977; retired June 2012) challenged the order dated 20.06.2013 passed by respondent No. 2 rejecting his representation for grant of second time-bound pay scale under the Finance Instructions dated 28.04.2008 and the clarification dated 10.08.2009. The Court held that clause 15 of the circular dated 28.04.2008 requires a separate decision for classes of employees whose posts are not mentioned in Schedule-II, including employees benefited under the Kramonnati scheme; the clarification dated 10.08.2009 contained no such decision; and since the petitioner's post of Non-Medical Supervisor is a 100% promotional post not included in Schedule-II, he was not entitled to any time-bound pay scale. Independently, having failed to claim the benefit during his tenure and having approached only in 2013 after retirement (writ filed 2015), his claim suffered from delay and laches. Writ petition dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 1382 of 2015

¶5

Chandrashekhar Gaikwad S/o Yogiraj Gaikwad Aged About 62 Years R/o Budhapara, Near Hanuman Mandir, Raipur P.S. Budhapara, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶6

... Petitioner

¶7

versus

¶8

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh S/o Through Principle Secretary Department Of Health, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

2 - Director, Directorate Of Health Services, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

... Respondents

¶11

(Cause title taken from Case Information System)

¶12

For Petitioner	: Mr. Syed Majid Ali, Advocate
For Respondents/State	: Mr. Vinod Tekam, Govt. Advocate and
	Mr. Vikhyat Arora, Panel Lawyer

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

19/01/2026

¶16

VED
PRAKASH
DEWANGAN
Digitally signed
by VED
PRAKASH
DEWANGAN
Date: 2026.02.03
18:53:27 +0530

¶17

1 . The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 20.06.2013 (Annexure P/5), passed by respondent No. 2, whereby the representation of the petitioner for grant of second timebound pay scale was rejected.

¶18

2 . Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Non-medical staff on 12.04.1977. He was continued in his service with utmost sincerity. The petitioner

¶19

¶20

was ordered for granting first time scale pay with effect from 23.02.2010 vide order dated 01.04.2010. The State of Chhattisgarh had issued a finance instructions on 28.04.2008, in which the benefit of second time scale pay was provided to ‘A’ and ‘B’ class employees, who have completed 8 years of service and ‘C’ class of employees, who have completed 10 years of service. He would further submit that since, the petitioner comes under the ‘C’ class employee, therefore, he is entitled for second time pay scale as per the circular dated 28.04.2008. Further, a clarification has been issued by the State Government on 10.08.2009, by which class ‘A’ and ‘B’ employees are entitled for benefit of first and second time pay scale after completion of 8 years and 16 years of their service and class ‘C’ employees are entitled for benefit of first and second time scale pay after completion of 10 years and 20 years of service. Since, the petitioner was granted the first time scale pay on 01.04.2010 with effect on 01.04.2006, he is also entitled for second time scale pay, as he has already completed more than 20 years of service from the date of his appointment.

¶21

3 . On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes and has submitted that, as per clause 15 of the Finance Instructions, dated 28.04.2008, there should be a separate decision with respect to the employees, who have been granted Kramonnati. The petitioner was granted Kramonnati vide order dated 01.04.2010 with effect from 01.04.2006. However, as per Annexure-2 of the said Finance Instructions, dated 28.04.2008, his post has not been included in the said Annexure-2 and it has been specifically mentioned in clause 15 of the Finance Instructions, dated 28.04.2008 that the employees, who have been benefited under the Kramonnati scheme, the decision

¶22

¶23

would be taken separately with respect to the benefit of their time scale pay. He would also submit that in the clarification dated 10.08.2009, there is no mention about the benefit granted to the employees, who have been granted the benefit of Kramonnati also. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any benefit under the said Finance Instructions dated 28.04.2008 or 10.08.2009 and his representation has rightly been rejected by the authorities and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶24

4 . I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition.

¶25

5 . The petitioner challenged the order dated 20.06.2013 (Annexure P/5), whereby his representation for grant of time-bound pay scale was rejected on the ground that, as per the schedule-II of the instructions issued by the Finance Department, the time-bound pay scale would be payable to the post of direct recruitment. The strength of the claim of the petitioner is the circular dated 28.04.2008 and clarification dated 10.08.2009 issued by the State Government. Clause 15 of the circular dated 28.04.2008 is reproduced hereinbelow:-

¶26

“15. वि�भि�्ቐ ��तनमा�न�के�लि�ये�उ्ሴ तर��तनमा�नके�पा�्ቔत�पारिरलि�्ቖ -1 के� अन�सा�रहो�गी�।वि�भि�्ቐ वि��गी�के�वि�लि�्ቖ सा!�गी" के�लि�ये�उ्ሴ तर��तनमा�न के�ቚኋ��धा�नइसापारिरलि�्ቖ के�ቚኋपा्ቔ -2 के�अन�सा�रविकेये�जा�ये�गी�।जिजानवि�लि�्ቖ सा!�गी" के�पारिरलि�्ቖ -2 मा( उल्��खनहो+ हो, उनके�सा!बं!धामा(, ቚኋचलि�त्ቅ मा�्ቐवित ये�जान�मा( सा!��धानहो�त�वि��गी�येቚኋस्त��अन�सा�रअ�गीसा�विन्ቓ2येलि�ये� जा�ये�गी�।सा��वि��गी�सा�अन�र�धाहो, विके��पारिरलि�्ቖ -2 मा( द��2ये�गीये�उनके� वि��गीसा�सा!बं!धिधातपाद�के�जा�!चकेरयेहोसा�विनभि5तकेर�( विकेये�पादसा�धा� �त6 के�हो7 ए�! ��तनमा�नसाहो�हो,।विकेसा��ቚኋके�रके�्ቔ �टि: पा�ये�जा�न�पार सामा�लिचतसा!��धानहो�त�वि�्ቈ वि��गीके�तत्के��अ�गीतकेर�ये�जा�ये�।”

¶27

6 . The document dated 10.08.2009 (Annexure P/7) is a clarification of the circular dated 28.04.2008 (Annexure P/8) and clause 2 of the

¶28

¶29

explanation is also necessary to reproduce here, which reads as under:-

¶30

.	उठा�ये�गये�िሮ�दु�	स्पቖኍ�करण
2.	क्ये�समयेम�नवे�तनम�नहे�त�निन቗ኋ��रिरत स�वेग�म पदु!्ቐतअनि቗ኋक�र�/कम�चा�र� क! भी� स�቗ኋ� भीत& क� अनि቗ኋक�र�/ कम�चा�र�क�सम�नसमयेम�नवे�तनम�न क�ला�भीቚኋ�्቎ हे! सक�ग�?	निवे्ቈ निवेभी�ग क� परिरप्ቔ दिदुन��क 28.4.2008 क�अन�स�रनि-नस�वेग�म स�቗ኋ�भीत& हे!त�हे., उनम निनये�नि/ पቐኋ�त निन቗ኋ��रिरतस�वे�अवेनि቗ኋप1ण�करन�पर उ्ሴतरवे�तनम�नक�ला�भीቚኋ�्቎ हे!ग�। इसस�स्पቖኍहे. दिकनिवेभी�ग�येभीत& निनयेम5 क�अन�स�रप1ण�त6 अथवे�आनि9करूपम स�቗ኋ�भीत& हे�त�निन቗ኋ��रिरतस�वेग�परयेदिदु क!ई 9�सक<ये स�वेक वेरन अथवे� पदु!्ቐनितस�निनये�/ हे!त�हे. त! उस�उस स�वेग�म उ/ वेरनअथवे�पदु!्ቐनितक< नितनिथस�निनये�/ म�न�-�करस�वेग�म निन቗ኋ��रिरतस�वे�क< अवेनि቗ኋक� पቐኋ�त समयेम�नवे�तनम�नहे�त�उ्ሴतरवे�तनम�न क< प�्ቔत�हे!ग�।

¶31

7 . From perusal of clause 15 of the circular dated 28.04.2008, it has been clearly mentioned that, decision would be taken separately with respect to the specific class of the employee, which has not been mentioned in schedule-II with respect to the Kramonnati scheme. From the clarification dated 10.08.2009, there is no decision as per clause 15 of the circular dated 28.04.2008. The department while rejecting the representation of the petitioner held that the post of NonMedical Supervisor (NMS) is 100% promotional post, which is not included in schedule-II of the circular dated 28.04.2008, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any time-bound pay scale. Further, when the circular came on 28.04.2008 and the clarification came on 10.08.2009 and the petitioner considered himself to be entitled for the time-bound pay scale, he ought to have claimed at that time itself, when the benefit of time bound pay scale was not extended to him,

¶32

¶33

but he claimed in the year 2013 i.e. after his retirement and filed the writ petition in the year 2015. In the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P/6), he disclosed that he has retired from service in the month of June, 2012, whereas he made his representation in the year 2013. There is no explanation from the petitioner, as to why he has not claimed the benefit during his tenure. The petitioner claimed the benefit of time-bound pay scale after his retirement, which suffers from delay and laches.

¶34

8 . In view of the aforesaid consideration, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner could not make out any good ground to interfere with the petition and to grant second time-bound pay scale to him. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶35

Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge

¶36

ved

Chandrashekhar Gaikwad v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrashekhar Gaikwad v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Jai Maa Gajgouri Fly Ash Bricks Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Manbarta Devi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Deepak Sahu Vs Siddharth Begami

Chandrika Prasad Sonwani Vs State Government

Atul Dansena Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Abhishek Dubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh