Mrs. B. Ekka Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:753

¶3

Digitally ABHIGYA signed by SAXENA ABHIGYA SAXENA

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 2217 of 2023

¶7

1 - Mrs. B. Ekka W/o Late Benedict Ekka Aged About 75 Years R/o Gorsi Dabra, Village Bishnupur Khurd, Block Ambikapur, Division Sarguja Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - Commissioner Sarguja Division, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - Collector District Sarguja Chhattisgarh

¶13

4 - Divisional Joint Director Treasury, Account And Pension Ambikapur Division, Sarguja District Sarguja Chhattisgarh

¶14

... Respondent(s)

¶15

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anand Dadariya, Additional A.G. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

06.01.2026

¶18

This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following relief:-

¶19

2

¶20

“10.1. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to grant the benefit of revised pay scale, kramonnati & arrears, thereafter refixation the pension of petitioner and further direct the respondent to release the arrears of revised pay scale & kramonnati with simple interest of 25%.

¶21

10.2. To kindly grant any other writ/ writs, order/ orders, relief/reliefs in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner. ”

¶22

Facts of the case :- The petitioner’s husband, late Benedict Ekka, was appointed to the post of Naib Tehsildar in the Department of Revenue & Disaster Management on 11.06.1975 and, while continuing in service, expired on 04.04.2009 during his posting as Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur. During his service tenure, the Divisional Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts and Pension, Ambikapur Division, Sarguja, addressed a communication to the Commissioner, Sarguja Division, recommending grant of second time pay scale to the petitioner’s husband with effect from 01.04.2006 in the higher pay band of ₹9300–34800 with Grade Pay ₹4400. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted a representation before the respondent Collector, District Sarguja, seeking grant of the admissible time pay scale along with arrears and consequential refixation of her pension. It is pertinent to state that as per the time pay scale

¶23

3

¶24

policy contained in letter dated 10.11.2017 (Annexure-P/2), the petitioner’s husband was entitled to the first time pay scale on completion of 10 years of service w.e.f. 11.06.1985 and the second time pay scale on completion of 20 years of service w.e.f. 11.06.1995; however, the respondents have arbitrarily and illegally restricted the benefit of second time pay scale to 01.04.2006. It is further submitted that under the Kramonnati policy as mentioned in the said letter dated 10.11.2017 (Annexure-P/2), the petitioner’s husband was entitled to the first Kramonnati on completion of 12 years of service w.e.f. 11.06.1987 and the second Kramonnati on completion of 24 years of service w.e.f. 11.06.1999, yet till date the respondent authorities have failed to extend the said benefits, resulting in denial of lawful service and pensionary entitlements to the petitioner.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s husband, late Benedict Ekka, was appointed to the post of Naib Tehsildar in the Department of Revenue & Disaster Management on 11.06.1975 and unfortunately expired on 04.04.2009 while in active service during his posting as Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur. It is further submitted that the Divisional Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts and Pension, Ambikapur Division, Sarguja, addressed a communication to the Commissioner, Sarguja Division, recommending grant of the second time pay scale to the petitioner’s husband with effect from 01.04.2006 in the pay band of ₹9300–34800 with Grade Pay

¶26

4

¶27

₹4400. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner duly submitted a representation before the respondent Collector, District Sarguja, seeking grant of the admissible time pay scale along with arrears and consequential refixation of her pension. It is contended that as per the time pay scale policy contained in letter dated 10.11.2017 (Annexure-P/2), the petitioner’s husband was legally entitled to the first time pay scale on completion of 10 years of service w.e.f. 11.06.1985 and the second time pay scale on completion of 20 years of service w.e.f. 11.06.1995, yet the respondents have illegally and arbitrarily confined the benefit of the second time pay scale to 01.04.2006. It is further submitted that under the Kramonnati policy as reflected in the said letter dated 10.11.2017 (Annexure-P/2), the petitioner’s husband was entitled to the first Kramonnati on completion of 12 years of service w.e.f. 11.06.1987 and the second Kramonnati on completion of 24 years of service w.e.f. 11.06.1999, however, till date the respondent authorities have failed to grant the said benefits, thereby causing grave illegality and prejudice to the petitioner.

¶28

Learned counsel for the State submits that the entitlement of the deceased employee to the claimed benefits is not automatic and is subject to fulfillment of the prescribed conditions under the relevant policy. It is contended that the deceased employee, if found, entitled to the benefit of time pay scale and/or Kramonnati only upon due consideration of his service record, particularly the

¶29

5

¶30

assessment of all five years’ Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs), and if he is found fit in accordance with the applicable rules and guidelines, the consequential benefits would be granted to the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent authorities have no intention to deny any lawful benefit and that, in the event this Hon’ble Court so directs, the respondents shall duly consider and decide the case of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law, policy and the service record of the deceased employee, within a reasonable time.

¶31

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record with utmost care.

¶32

Considering the limited nature of the controversy, the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case raised by the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met if the matter is disposed of with an appropriate direction to the respondent authorities.

¶33

It is ordered accordingly that the respondent authorities shall consider and decide the case of the petitioner for grant of the claimed benefits of revised pay scale, time pay scale, Kramonnati, arrears and consequential refixation of pension, strictly in accordance with the applicable rules, policies and law, including due consideration of the service record and ACRs of the deceased employee, within a period of 60 days from the date of

¶34

6

¶35

receipt of a certified copy of this order. While doing so, the respondent authorities shall also take into account the fact that the petitioner is a widow and aged about 75 years , and shall ensure

¶36

that the decision is taken expeditiously.

¶37

With the aforesaid direction, the petition stands disposed of . No order as to costs.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶40

Saxena

Mrs. B. Ekka v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. B. Ekka 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

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Vs Smt. Kunti Gop

Vishnu Kumar Modi Vs National Insurance Company Limited

Mulchand Thakur Vs National Mineral Development Corporation (Nmdc)

Ku. Masoom Rathod Vs State of Chhattisgarh

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Purana Bai

Vikas Patre Vs State of Chhattisgarh