S.D. Goyal Vs Union of India

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2026.03.11 11:13:59 +0530

¶3

2026:CGHC:11193

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 2242 of 2026

¶7

1 - S.D. Goyal S/o. Late Jeevan Lal Goyal, Aged About 58 Years Working As Technical Assistant At National Institute Of Technology, G.E. Road, Raipur, C.G.

¶8

2 - J.R. Mandavi, S/o. Late Thakur Ram Mandavi, Aged About 58 Years Working As Technical Assistant At National Institute Of Technology, G.E. Road, Raipur C.G.

¶9

... Petitioner(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - Union Of India Through Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Ministry Of Education Of India, Government Of India, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 110001 2 - National Institute Of Technology, Raipur, Through- Its Registrar, G.E. Road, Raipur 492010

¶12

3 - The Director, National Institute Of Technology, Raipur, G.E. Road, Raipur 492010

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

For Petitioners : Shri Neeraj Choubey, Advocate For Respondents : Shri Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General

¶15

2

¶16

Hon’ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶17

Order on Board

¶18

09/03/2026

¶19

1. Petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:

¶20

“I. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to issue order/orders, writ/writs, direction/directions by directing to respondents, to extend benefit of the pay scale of PB-2 (Rs.9300-34800) + GP-4200/- with effect of 01.01.2006 to the petitioners and further given the benefits of the MACP & GP of Rs. 4600/- and other consequential benefits accordingly including the interest for delay @ 10% p.a.

¶21

II. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to direct the respondent authority to immediately removed the pay discrepancies between similar situated employees and the petitioners by given similar treatment from the same date to the petitioners in the matter of pay scale/promotion.

¶22

III. Any other relief/relief's, which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, with cost of the petition, may also please be granted to the petitioner.”

¶23

2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners are nonteaching staff and according to rules and policy formulated

¶24

3

¶25

petitioners are also entitled for Modified Assured Career Progressive Scheme (MACPS) for pay fixation with grade pay of Rs.4,200. Employer of petitioners have considered claim of other employees vide order dated 1.3.2013 and have granted them benefit with effect from 17.3.2010 and have notionally fixed pay with effect from 1.1.2006. Petitioners, who are left consideration, have submitted representation based upon which a committee was constituted and committee has also recommended for giving benefit to petitioners also as granted benefit to other similarly situated employees vide order dated 1.3.2013. Committee proceedings was forwarded to respondent No.1 on 14.7.2025 which is a reminder for notional fixation of pay with effect from 1.1.2016 and pay band of Rs.4,200 which is pending consideration before respondent No.1. Petitioners have thereafter again submitted representation before respondent No.2, however, said representation is also pending consideration. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that claim of petitioners is still pending consideration before respondents No.1 and 2 and, therefore, direction be issued to respondents No.1 and 2 to take decision on representation of petitioners within specified time frame.

¶26

3. Learned counsel for respondents submits that in view of submission made by learned counsel for petitioners and documents enclosed with writ petition he is having no objection to limited prayer made by learned counsel for petitioners if representation submitted by petitioners as also letter forwarded by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1 are still pending

¶27

4

¶28

consideration appropriate decision will be taken.

¶29

4. On due consideration of submissions made by learned counsel for respective parties, nature of grievance raised, further considering that committee constituted by respondent No.2 while considering claim of petitioners have observed that similar nature of relief has already been granted earlier and further letter is written by respondents No.2 to respondent No.1 along with copy of minutes of meeting of agenda item No.65.10 and representation submitted by petitioners is still pending consideration, writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.1 to take decision on letter forwarded by respondent No.2 dated 14.7.2025 and respondent No.2 is directed to consider representation of petitioners in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a further period of three months from date of receipt of this order.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

(Parth Prateem Sahu) JUDGE

¶32

Gopal

S.D. Goyal v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.D. Goyal v. Union of India

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

Dr. Girish Kumar Singh Vs Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalaya

Shrawan Kumar Kathale Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vijay Lal Azaad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Mita Mahant Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Laluram Nureti Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anjalina Nand Vs State of Chhattisgarh