Jai Prakash Dubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:16389

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 2328 of 2022

¶6

Jai Prakash Dubey S/o Late Shri Thakur Prasad Dubey, Aged About 31 Years Working As Security Guard In Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhavan, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

2. The Joint Director, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, R.D.A. Bhavan, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

3. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, (C.G.)

¶12

4. Shri Sanny Singh, Posted As Assistant Revenue Inspector, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, (C.G.)

¶13

5. Shri Amit Singh Thakur Posted As Assistant Revenue Inspector, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, (C.G.)

¶14

6. Shri Mukesh Patel, Posted As Assistant Revenue Inspector, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, (C.G.)

¶15

7. Shri Naveen Soni, Posted As Assistant Grade-3, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, (C.G.)

¶16

	... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner	: Mr. Mohit Kumar, Advocate on behalf of Mr. ManojKumar Sinha, Advocate
For State	: Mr. AbhyudayTripathi, P.L.
For Respondent No. 3	: Mr. Ankush Soni, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, Advocate

¶17

2

¶18

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶19

Order On Board

¶20

9.4.2026

¶21

1) Petitioner has filed this petition seeking following reliefs:-

¶22

10.1 That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the entire records in connection of the petitioner's cases.

¶23

10.2 That the Hon'ble court be further pleased to quash the impugned order dated 02.11.2011 (Ann.P/1) passed by the Respondent NO.3 granting promotion to post of Assistant Grade-III.

¶24

10.3 That the Hon'ble court be further pleased to direct the Respondent No.3 to grant promotion to the petitioner on the post of Assistant Grade-III or Assistant Revenue Inspector with consequential service benefits from the date the similar persons has been granted the same benefits.

¶25

10.4 Any other order that the Hon'ble Court deems fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case be also passed.

¶26

10.5 That the cost of the petition be also awarded to the petitioners.

¶27

2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was

¶28

initially appointed on the post of Security Guard under respondent-department on 8.11.2011 in the pay-scale of Rs. 255055-2600-3200/-. He further submits that respondent No. 3 has issued orders of promotion on 2.11.2021 whereby juniors to the petitioner have been promoted to the post of Assistant Revenue Inspector whereas petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Revenue Inspector vide order dated 31.7.2023. He contends that petitioner is entitled for arrears of salary with all

¶29

3

¶30

consequential benefits from 2.11.2021. He prays to allow this petition.

¶31

3) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose. They submit that according to Fundamental Rule 17, a government servant's pay and allowances start from the date they assume charge of the post and since the petitioner assumed the charge of promoted post on 31.7.2023, he would become entitled for the benefits attached to the said post from that date. They further submit that this petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶32

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

¶33

5) Taking into consideration the fact that petitioner has already been promoted and he has been extended the benefits attached to the said post from the date he assumed the charge, in my opinion, the approach of respondent authorities appears to be just and proper according to Fundamental Rule 17. But at the same time, petitioner is entitled for notional benefits from the date when his juniors were promoted to the post of Assistant Revenue Inspector i.e. from 2.11.2021.

¶34

6) In view of the aforesaid discussion, this petition is hereby being disposed reserving liberty in favor of the petitioner to make a representation before respondent No. 3 within period of 30 days. The authority concerned is also directed to decide such

¶35

4

¶36

representation, if so moved by the petitioner in an objective manner, preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of such representation.

¶37

7) With the aforesaid direction, this petition stands disposed .

¶38

Sd/(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

¶39

A j i n k y a Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.04.10 11:39:58 +0530

Jai Prakash Dubey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Prakash Dubey 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dev Das Tondar (D.D. Tondar) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S. Budhia Auto Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vikram Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Suryakant Sarkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Golden Eagle Ferro Ispat (P) Limited, Vs Union of India

Sadhna Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh