Shyam Kumar Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

CGHC010201942023

2026:CGHC:29787

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 4321 of 2023

¶7

1 - Shyam Kumar Patel S/o Harihar Prasad Patel Aged About 52 Years Posted As Vyakhyata L.B. At Government Higher Secondary School Kunjemura, Block Tamnar, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶8

2 - Bidya Charan Banaj S/o Avadhram Banaj Aged About 55 Years Posted As Vyakhyata L.B. At Government Higher Secondary School Kunjemura, Block Tamnar, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶9

3 - Rajesh Kumar Namdeo S/o Madhao Prasad Namdeo Aged About 54 Years Posted As Vyakhyata L.B. At Government Higher Secondary School Kunjemura, Block Tamnar, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶10

... Petitioners

¶11

versus

¶12

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

2 - Collector Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶14

3 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶15

4 - District Education Officer Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶16

5 - Block Education Officer Tamnar, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶17

6 - The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Tamnar, District Raigarh (C.G.)

¶18

... Respondents

¶19

For Petitioners	:	Mr. Shiv Kumar Banjare, Advocate
For Respondents 1, 2, 4 & 5/State	:	Mr. Anish Tiwari, Dy. Govt. Advocate and Mr. Vikhyat Arora, Panel Lawyer
For Respondents 3 & 6	:	Ms. Akanksha Verma Dabhadker, Advocate

¶20

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶21

Order on Board

¶22

14.07.2026

¶23

Digitally signed byBINI BINI PRADEEP PRADEEP Date:2026.07.16 10:47:48 +0530

¶24

2

¶25

1. The petitioners have preferred instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief(s):-

¶26

“10.1 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to sanction and pay the pending arrears payment of revised pay scale from year 2005 to 2012 to the petitioners within a stipulated time limit.

¶27

10.2 Any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.”

¶28

2. Grievance of the petitioners in the instant case is that they have been granted revised/time pay scale vide Order dated 02.11.2012 (Annexure-P/2), however, they have not been granted arrears of revised/time pay scale after completion of 07 years in service.

¶29

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were appointed as Shiksha Karmi Category-I (Lecturer) by respondent No. 3 in the year 1998 and were subsequently regularized in the year 2002. Upon completion of seven years of service in the year 2005, the petitioners became entitled to the benefit of the revised/time pay scale. It is further submitted that although the petitioners were granted the benefit of the revised/time pay scale vide order dated 02.11.2012 (Annexure P/2), they were denied the consequential arrears from 2005, on which they had actually become entitled to the said benefit. It is further submitted that the petitioners had fulfilled the requisite eligibility conditions and completed the prescribed qualifying service much prior to the issuance of the order dated 02.11.2012. Therefore, it is prayed that the respondents authorities may be directed to sanction and pay the pending arrears of revised/time pay scale from the year 2005 to 2012, within a stipulated time limit.

¶30

3

¶31

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that Circular dated 01.05.2012 (Annexure R-3/1) does not provide for grant of time pay scale to the employees who had completed seven years of service prior to 01.04.2012, however, the said Circular provides that after completion of 07 years in service, Lecturers (Panchayat) or Teachers/Asst. Teachers (Panchayat) would be entitled to one annual increment and the petitioners have already received the annual increment in accordance with the above Circular. Hence, claim of the petitioners cannot be entertained.

¶32

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶33

6. Vide Circular dated 01.5.2012 (Annexure R3/1), issued by Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, the State Government granted time pay scale with effect from 01.4.2012 to those lecturers (Panchayat), who had completed 07 years of service. As per aforesaid circular, it was effective from 01.4.2012, however, it does not stipulate that the time pay scale would be payable retrospectively to Lecturers (Panchayat), Teachers (Panchayat), or Assistant Teachers (Panchayat), who had completed seven years of service prior to 01.4.2012, rather Clause 3 of the Circular provides that after completion of 07 years in service, Lecturers (Panchayat) or Teachers/Asst. Teachers (Panchayat) would be entitled to one annual increment.

¶34

7. During the course of submission, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after completion of 07 years in service, the petitioners have been granted one annual increment for each year until the grant of time pay scale vide Order dated 02.11.2012 (Annexure-P/2). The aforesaid fact also reflects from the reply filed by respondent No.3 and communication made vide Annexure-R3/2 by the Block Education Officer, Tamnar, Distt. Raigarh to the

¶35

4

¶36

Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Raigarh. Thus, since the time pay scale was made applicable only with effect from 01.4.2012 vide Circular Annexure-R3/1, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to get the benefit of time pay scale for the period prior to 01.4.2012, except for the annual increment which has already been granted to them, as conceded by learned counsel for both the parties.

¶37

8. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief sought by the petitioners. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.

¶38

9. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

¶41

Bini

Shyam Kumar Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Kumar Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surendra Singh Chhabda Vs Smt. Neeta Mehar

Satya Prakash Verma Vs R. P. Jain

Madan Singh Netam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ravindra Kumar Baiga Vs Shri D. Rahul Venkat (Ias)

Manoj Sahu Vs Fagulal Gupta

Ravi Sinha Vs Smt. Anju Sinha