1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1909 of 2023 1 - Munna Lal Markam S/o Late Shri Baldau Markam Aged About 54 Years Working On The Post Of Skill Attendant And Posted At Govt. Engineering College Koni, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Bhaskar Prasad Kamal (Suryavanshi) S/o Late Shri Indal Prasad Kamal Aged About 63 Years Retired Skill Attendant Resident Of Bharvidih, Post Lakhram, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Bhupal Singh Maravi S/o Late Chhedi Lal Maravi Aged About 50 Years Working On The Post Of Skill Attendant And Posted At Govt. Engineering College Koni, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - K. K. Patel S/o Late Shri Vishram Patel Aged About 61 Years Working On The Post Of Time Keepar And Posted At Govt. Engineering College Koni, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Panch Ram Gahewal S/o Haricharan Aged About 56 Years Working On The Post Of Craft Instructor And Posted At Govt. Engineering College Koni, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 6 - S. L. Tiwari S/o Rambharos Tiwari Aged About 64 Years Retired Machine Shop Instructor Resident Of Village Birkona, Post Birkona, Police Station Koni, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 7 - Basant Kumar Shyam S/o Late Shri Dukhuram Shyam Aged About VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 65 Years Retired Workshop Assistant, Resident Of Village Jali, Police Station Jali, Via Pali, Tahsil Kota, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Technical And Higher Educationdepartment, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Director Department Of Technical Education, Indravati Bhawan, Block -3, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Principal Govt. Engineering College Koni, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner(s) :- Ravipal Maheshwari, Advocate For State :- Mr. Arpit Agrawal, P.L. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 16.01.2026 1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioners are challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the impugned orders dated 03.08.2021 and 17.12.2021 passed by Respondent No. 4, the Principal, whereby the legitimate claim of the petitioners has been illegally rejected and the benefit of time-bound pay scale, as 3 provided under the circular issued by the State Government, has been denied. It is submitted that this Hon’ble Court had earlier directed the respondents to grant the time-bound pay scale in accordance with the said circular. However, in complete disregard of the directions of this Hon’ble Court, the respondent authority has again rejected the claim of the petitioners. Hence, the present writ petition is being filed challenging the aforesaid impugned orders. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:- “(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside impugned orders dated 03.08.2021 and 17.12.2021 passed by the respondent no. 4 the Principal (Annexure P- 1) and to direct the respondent authorities to grant time bound pay scale with interest as per circular issued by the State Govt. within stipulated time, in the interest of justice. (ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 3. Facts of the case are that the petitioners have been serving the respondent department sincerely and honestly for the last 25–30 years without any complaint, and some of the petitioners have even retired from their respective posts. In terms of the State Government circular dated 28.04.2008, which provides for grant of 4 time-bound pay scale on completion of 10 years of service, the petitioners became fully eligible long back; however, despite repeated representations submitted since the year 2012, the same were never decided. It is further submitted that similarly situated employees holding the same posts in other Polytechnic and Engineering Colleges have been granted the benefit of time- bound pay scale, yet the respondent No. 4 arbitrarily denied the same to the petitioners. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners approached this Hon’ble Court, which directed the respondent authorities to decide the representations in accordance with the applicable circular; however, even thereafter the directions were not complied with, compelling the petitioners to file contempt proceedings, pursuant to which the impugned orders dated 03.08.2021 and 17.12.2021 were passed rejecting the petitioners’ claim solely on the untenable ground that the petitioners’ posts do not find mention in Index–II of the circular, despite their clear eligibility under Para 3 thereof, rendering the impugned action illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are presently working in Government Engineering College, Bilaspur on different posts. It is submitted that petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 are working as Skilled Attendants, petitioner No. 4 is working as Time Keeper, petitioner No. 5 is working as Craft Instructor, petitioner No. 6 is working as Machine Shop Instructor and petitioner No. 7 is working as Workshop Assistant. All the petitioners are Class-III 5 employees and have been rendering continuous service for several years in their respective posts. It is further submitted that despite completion of more than 10 years of service, the petitioners have not been granted the benefit of first time-bound pay scale as provided under the circular dated 28.04.2008. Similarly, they have also not been granted the benefit of third time- bound pay scale as provided under the subsequent circular dated 08.08.2018. Learned counsel submits that recently the Additional Secretary, Skill Development, Technical Education and Employment Department, has issued a letter dated 31.10.2025 proposing grant of time-bound pay scale to those employees whose posts are not included in the scheduled list; however, no decision has been taken by the department in respect of the present petitioners. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, as per the aforesaid circulars, every eligible employee is entitled to grant of time-bound pay scale on completion of 10 years, 20 years and 30 years of regular service. It is contended that all other similarly placed Class-III employees whose posts are included in the schedule have already been granted such benefits, but the petitioners have been denied the same only on the ground that their posts are not specifically mentioned in the scheduled list. It is submitted that such denial is arbitrary and discriminatory, as the nature of duties and status of the petitioners are equivalent to other Class-III employees who have already been extended the benefit of time-bound pay scale. Therefore, the petitioners are 6 also legally entitled to the same benefit in accordance with the applicable circulars. 5. Learned State counsel submits that the benefit of time-bound pay scale, as per the applicable schedule, has already been granted to those employees whose posts are included in the scheduled list. It is submitted that since the posts held by the present petitioners are not presently included in the said schedule, the benefit of time-bound pay scale could not be extended to them. However, it is further submitted that the department is in the process of getting the posts of the petitioners included in the revised schedule, so that they may also be considered for grant of time-bound pay scale on par with other similarly placed employees of the Skill Development, Technical Education and Employment Department. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, and upon a careful perusal of the material available on record, particularly the circular dated 28.04.2008, it is evident that the petitioners are Class-III employees working under the Skill Development, Technical Education and Employment Department and are governed by the scheme of time-bound pay scale. The said circular clearly provides that every eligible employee is 7 entitled to grant of first, second and third time-bound pay scale on completion of 10 years, 20 years and 30 years of regular service respectively. From the record, it is not in dispute that the petitioners have already completed the requisite years of service for grant of such benefits. Some of the petitioners have completed more than 20 years of service and are, therefore, entitled to the second time-bound pay scale, while those who have completed 30 years of service are entitled to the third time-bound pay scale. Despite fulfilment of these conditions, the said benefits have not been extended to the petitioners. 8. The sole ground taken by the respondent department for denial of the aforesaid benefit is that the posts held by the petitioners are not specifically mentioned in the scheduled list appended to the circular. In the considered opinion of this Court, such a ground cannot be made a basis to deprive the petitioners of their legitimate service benefits. The non-inclusion of a particular post in the schedule is an administrative lapse on the part of the department and cannot operate to the prejudice of the employees who are otherwise similarly situated and performing duties equivalent to other Class-III employees. 9. It is an admitted position that the petitioners are Class-III employees of the department, and this fact has not been disputed by learned State counsel. It is also on record that other Class-III and even Class-IV employees of the same department have 8 already been granted the benefit of first, second and third time- bound pay scale in terms of the applicable circulars. Therefore, denial of the same benefit to the present petitioners merely on account of non-mention of their post names in the schedule amounts to discrimination and is arbitrary in nature. 10. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners are entitled to grant of time-bound pay scale in accordance with the circular dated 28.04.2008 and other subsequent circulars on completion of the prescribed length of service. Accordingly, the respondent department is directed to take immediate steps to include the posts held by the petitioners in the relevant schedule for the purpose of grant of first, second and third time-bound pay scale, and to extend the said benefits to the petitioners in accordance with law. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. It is further made clear that from the material available on record, it is apparent that the petitioners fulfil all necessary conditions for grant of time-bound pay scale, unless there exists any specific legal impediment rendering any individual petitioner disentitled. The respondent authorities are, therefore, directed to adopt a pragmatic and reasonable approach while considering the case of the petitioners and to grant them the appropriate time- bound pay scale benefits expeditiously. It is also directed that all 9 consequential service benefits, including fixation of pay, arrears, and other admissible monetary benefits arising out of grant of time-bound pay scale, shall also be extended to the petitioners in accordance with law. 12. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha