1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3349 of 2015 Afsar Ali (Died) Through LRs. 1. Sayyeda Shabana Parveen D/o Late Afsar Ali Aged About 50 Years R/o 53, Rohini Vihar, Phase -I, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sayad Sharafat Ali S/o Late Afsar Ali Aged About 48 Years R/o A - 601, 6th Floor, Surya Residency, Infront Of M.J. College Junwani Road, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sayad Sajid Ali S/o Late Afsar Ali Aged About 46 Years R/o Raza Colony, Infront Of Anas Kirana Store, Kelabadi, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sayed Mushtaq Ali S/o Late Afsar Ali Aged About 45 Years R/o Behind Masjid Kelabadi, Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh Industrial Court Through Its President, Nagar Ghadi Chok, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Government of Chhattisgarh, Through Additional Secretary, General Administration Department, Ministry/ Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Government of Chhattisgarh, Through Additional Secretary, Labour Department, Ministry/ Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Shri Naveen Shukla, Advocate. For State : Shri Sumit Singh, Dy. Advocate General. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 14.01. 202 6 1. Pursuant to the order dated 05.01.2026, Ms. Jyoti Sharma, Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bilaspur, is present in person before the court. 2. The present petition under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs: INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.01.15 12:59:59 +0530 2 “10.1 Issue a writ / writs, order / orders, direction / directions directing the respondent no. 1 to grant the benefit as per the recommendations made by the 'Brahmswarup Samiti' by paying the enhanced difference amount of wages/salary from 1.4.2006 to 31.7.2007. 10.2 Pass such other and further reliefs as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case may kindly be granted.” 3. The subject matter in brief is that, the original petitioner Afsar Ali was working as Assistant Superintendent, Industrial Court, Durg and he retired from service on 31.07.2007 after attaining the age of superannuation. Prior to his superannuation, there was a recommendation by “Bramhswaroop Samiti” (in short, the Samiti) which was accepted by the Chhattisgarh Government also regarding enhancement of wages/pay scale of employees w.e.f. 01.04.2006. After acceptance of the recommendation of the Samiti for enhancement of wages and salary of the employees, the Industrial Court also passed an order on 21.12.2011 granting benefit of recommendation of Samiti, however, no benefit was extended to the petitioner for enhancement of his salary/wages. Thus, after his retirement, he filed the present writ petition for grant of said benefit w.e.f. 01.04.2006 up to 31.07.2007 i.e. the date of his retirement. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Industrial Court has granted the benefit of said recommendation of the Samiti to other employees by its order dated 21.12.2011, but the petitioner was deprived from the same and he was not extended the said benefit. He would further submit that non granting of benefit of the recommendation and granting the same to other employees would 3 clearly discriminate him from the benefit which is violative under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and there is no reason for non granting the benefit of recommendation of the Samiti to the petitioner. Therefore, the same may be granted to him also. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that although there is recommendation of the Samiti and in pursuance thereof, the Industrial Court had issued an order on 21.12.2011 granting benefit of recommendation of Samiti to other employees, however, vide order dated 01.07.2013 the Industrial Court, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, has withdrawn the order dated 21.12.2011 granting benefit of said recommendation of the Samiti and no employees have been granted the said benefit. He would further submit that one Chandrika Prasad Sidar who was earlier granted the said benefit under order dated 21.12.2011 have refunded the amount of Rs.3,73,233/-which was granted to him under the said recommendation. Thus, the petitioner cannot claim that other employees have been granted the benefit of said recommendation of the Samiti. Therefore, there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 7. From perusal of material annexed with the writ petition as well as the order dated 21.12.2011 it transpires that pursuant to the recommendation of the Samiti, a scrutiny committee was constituted by the Industrial Court Chhattisgarh, Raipur, who also recommended for grant of higher pay scale to its employees and also recommended for 4 grant of higher pay scale to 8 employees including the petitioner. The order dated 01.07.2013 is annexed in the petition at page number 43 which is an amended order, according to which, the order dated 21.12.2011 by which the recommendation for grant of higher pay scale was made, was reconsidered and the benefit granted earlier was withdrawn and amended order was passed. Along with their additional return, the State has filed the document Annexure R-2/5 and shown that no other employees have been granted the benefit of recommendation of said Samiti w.e.f. 01.04.2006. Further, in their counter affidavit filed on 09.09.2025, in paragraph-5, they disclosed that Chandrika Prasad Sidar, who was earlier granted the benefit of recommendation of the Samiti, have refunded the amount of Rs.3,73,233/- which has been deposited by him through Bank Challan dated 26.08.2025. 8. Since recommendation of the Samiti could not be acted upon by the respondent department, the petitioner also cannot claim the benefit of said recommendation of Samiti as the same has not been granted to other employees also. Furthermore, the petitioner stood retired on 31.07.2007 whereas he filed the present writ petition on 11.09.2015. Therefore, in the opinion of this court, the petitioner has failed to make out a case to grant the relief claimed in the present writ petition. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder