Madan Singh Netam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

CGHC010120902023

¶3

2026:CGHC:29353

¶4

Digitally signed by RUKHSAR RUKHSAR BANO BANO Date: 2026.07.14 17:13:14 +0530

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

NAFR

¶7

WPS No. 2771 of 2023

¶8

1 - Madan Singh Netam S/o Mr. Baniya Ram Netam Aged About 40 Years Post Teacher (Local Body) Posted At Govt. Upper Primary School Kumhankhar, Block Narharpur District Uttar Baster Kanker, Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

2 - Commissioner Cum Director Panchayat Sanchanalaya Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

3 - Secretary School Education Department Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

4 - Secretary Forest Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶15

5 - Zila Panchayat Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat District Uttar Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh

¶16

*(Cause t*	*itle*	... Respondents *, as taken from CIS)*
For Petitioner	:	Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate
For State/Resp. Nos.1 to 4	:	Mr. Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer
For Respondent No.5	:	Mr. Devashish Dongre, Advocate on behalf
		of Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate.

¶17

2

¶18

(Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶19

Order On Board

¶20

13/07/2026

¶21

Heard.

¶22

The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs :-

¶23

“I. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside the circular/order dated 23/4/16 issued by the respondent no.1 and further please to direct the respondents authority to grant the revised pay scale on completion of 8 years of service, including previous service rendered by the petitioner.

¶24

II. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and the cost of the petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioner.”

¶25

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner has sought the relief of quashing / setting aside the circular/order dated 23.04.2016, but the said circular has already been quashed by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mukesh Kumar Patel and another vs. State of Chhattisgarh and another (WPS No.2530/2017) decided on 28.11.2017. Hence, learned counsel confines his arguments only to the relief seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to

¶26

3

¶27

grant the revised pay scale to the petitioner on completion of 8 years of service, including the previous service rendered by him.

¶28

The dispute raised in the present petition pertains to the nonconsideration of the petitioner’s claim for grant of the revised pay scale on completion of 8 years of service. The petitioner’s claim was rejected on the ground that the he had not completed 8 years of service in the same department and on the same post. This ground has been specifically raised by learned State counsel.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade III on 09.06.2005 under the Panchayat Department. Subsequently, he was appointed as Forester (Vanrakshak) on 03.11.2006 in the Forest Department. Thereafter, on 28.06.2008, he was appointed to the higher post of Shiksha Karmi Grade II under the Panchayat Department. It is contended that, after taking into account all the services rendered by the petitioner, he completed more than 8 years of qualifying service and, therefore, became entitled to the benefit of the revised pay scale in the year 2013. Learned counsel further submits that the issue involved in the present petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in a batch of writ petitions disposed of on 27.10.2018, the lead case being WPS No.6147/2018 (Shabnum Khatun vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) and the other connected matters.

¶30

4

¶31

Learned State counsel does not dispute that the issue involved in the instant petition is similar to the one decided in the case of Shabnum Khatun (supra).

¶32

In Shabnum Khatun (supra), the issue involved was identical to that in the present case. Learned Single Bench, after considering the various judgments rendered by learned Division Bench, has observed in paragraphs 30, 31 & 34 as under :-

¶33

“30. Now, in the given situation, if for the post of Teacher or for that matter for the post of Lecturer if there are two set of candidates, one who had applied while working under the Urban Administration Department and one who had applied from under the Panchayat Department, if the candidates from both these categories are found eligible and selected, it is here that the anomalous situation would arise. Though both have been selected from the same set of recruitment process and have been appointed together, the candidates whose past service was in the same department would get the advantage over and above one set of person whose employment in the past was under a different department and the situation would also be vice-versa though both the department is under the same State Government. It was under similar situation that the judgment of Mukesh Patel (Supra) was also decided.

¶34

As discussed earlier, except for the appointment being in a different department, rest of the entire factual matrix remains identical and the action thus would be hit by the principles envisaged under Article 14 as it would amount to discrimination.

¶35

5

¶36

It is directed that the respondents shall subject to verification so far as the eligibility and fulfillment of the requisites consider the case of the petitioners for the purpose of grant of higher pay scale by taking the previous service of the petitioners as qualifying service for the purpose of counting the total length of service and all those persons who are found eligible for obtaining the benefit, let appropriate orders be issued.”

¶37

Since the issue involved in the present case is identical to that involved in the aforecited batch of cases, the present writ petition also deserves to be and is accordingly disposed of in the similar terms of the order passed in WPS No.6147/2018 (Shabnum Khatun vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) and the other connected cases.

¶38

Consequently, the present writ petition is allowed . The petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit as prayed for, subject to the verification of his eligibility by the concerned department.

¶39

Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. No order as to cost(s).

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶42

JUDGE

¶43

Rukhsar

Madan Singh Netam v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madan Singh Netam 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anita Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Manisha Mirche Vs Vijay Kumar Mirche

Narayan Prasad Pandey Vs Dr. K. v. Rao

Awadh Ram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shivram Agrawal Vs Rakesh Kumar Agrawal

Manohar Lal Tiwari Vs Ramesh Khandey