1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1382 of 2015 Chandrashekhar Gaikwad S/o Yogiraj Gaikwad Aged About 62 Years R/o Budhapara, Near Hanuman Mandir, Raipur P.S. Budhapara, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh S/o Through Principle Secretary Department Of Health, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director, Directorate Of Health Services, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Syed Majid Ali, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Vinod Tekam, Govt. Advocate and Mr. Vikhyat Arora, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 19/01/2026 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 20.06.2013 (Annexure P/5), passed by respondent No. 2, whereby the representation of the petitioner for grant of second time- bound pay scale was rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Non-medical staff on 12.04.1977. He was continued in his service with utmost sincerity. The petitioner VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.02.03 18:53:27 +0530 2 was ordered for granting first time scale pay with effect from 23.02.2010 vide order dated 01.04.2010. The State of Chhattisgarh had issued a finance instructions on 28.04.2008, in which the benefit of second time scale pay was provided to ‘A’ and ‘B’ class employees, who have completed 8 years of service and ‘C’ class of employees, who have completed 10 years of service. He would further submit that since, the petitioner comes under the ‘C’ class employee, therefore, he is entitled for second time pay scale as per the circular dated 28.04.2008. Further, a clarification has been issued by the State Government on 10.08.2009, by which class ‘A’ and ‘B’ employees are entitled for benefit of first and second time pay scale after completion of 8 years and 16 years of their service and class ‘C’ employees are entitled for benefit of first and second time scale pay after completion of 10 years and 20 years of service. Since, the petitioner was granted the first time scale pay on 01.04.2010 with effect on 01.04.2006, he is also entitled for second time scale pay, as he has already completed more than 20 years of service from the date of his appointment. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes and has submitted that, as per clause 15 of the Finance Instructions, dated 28.04.2008, there should be a separate decision with respect to the employees, who have been granted Kramonnati. The petitioner was granted Kramonnati vide order dated 01.04.2010 with effect from 01.04.2006. However, as per Annexure-2 of the said Finance Instructions, dated 28.04.2008, his post has not been included in the said Annexure-2 and it has been specifically mentioned in clause 15 of the Finance Instructions, dated 28.04.2008 that the employees, who have been benefited under the Kramonnati scheme, the decision 3 would be taken separately with respect to the benefit of their time scale pay. He would also submit that in the clarification dated 10.08.2009, there is no mention about the benefit granted to the employees, who have been granted the benefit of Kramonnati also. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any benefit under the said Finance Instructions dated 28.04.2008 or 10.08.2009 and his representation has rightly been rejected by the authorities and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 5. The petitioner challenged the order dated 20.06.2013 (Annexure P/5), whereby his representation for grant of time-bound pay scale was rejected on the ground that, as per the schedule-II of the instructions issued by the Finance Department, the time-bound pay scale would be payable to the post of direct recruitment. The strength of the claim of the petitioner is the circular dated 28.04.2008 and clarification dated 10.08.2009 issued by the State Government. Clause 15 of the circular dated 28.04.2008 is reproduced hereinbelow:- “15. विभि्ቐ तनमा न के लिये उ्ሴतर तनमा न के पा ्ቔत पारिरलि्ቖ-1 के अनसा र होगी। विभि्ቐ वि गी के विलि्ቖ सा!गी" के लिये उ्ሴतर तनमा न के ቚኋ धा न इसा पारिरलि्ቖ के ቚኋपा्ቔ-2 के अनसा र विकेये जा येगी । जिजान विलि्ቖ सा!गी" के पारिरलि्ቖ-2 मा( उल्ख नहो+ हो, उनके सा!बं!धा मा(, ቚኋचलित ्ቅमा्ቐवित येजान मा( सा!धान होत वि गीये ቚኋस्त  अनसा र अगी सा विन्ቓ2ये लिये जा येगी । सा वि गी सा अनरधा हो, विके  पारिरलि्ቖ-2 मा( द 2ये गीये उनके वि गी सा सा!बं!धिधात पाद के जा !च केर येहो साविनभि5त केर ( विके ये पाद साधा त6 के हो7 ए! तनमा न साहो हो,। विकेसा  ቚኋके र के ्ቔटि: पा ये जा न पार ” सामालिचत सा!धान होत वि्ቈ वि गी के तत्के  अगीत केर ये जा ये। 6. The document dated 10.08.2009 (Annexure P/7) is a clarification of the circular dated 28.04.2008 (Annexure P/8) and clause 2 of the 4 explanation is also necessary to reproduce here, which reads as under:- ्ቅ. उठाये गये िሮ दु स्पቖኍकरण 2. क्ये समयेमन वेतनमन हेत निन቗ኋरिरत सवेग म पदु!्ቐत अनि቗ኋकर/कमचार क! भी स቗ኋ भीत& क अनि቗ኋकर/ कमचार क समन समयेमन वेतनमन क लाभी ቚኋ्቎ हे! सक ग ? निवे्ቈ निवेभीग क परिरप्ቔ दिदुनक 28.4.2008 क अनसर नि-न सवेग म स቗ኋ भीत& हे!त हे., उनम निनयेनि/ पቐኋत निन቗ኋरिरत सवे अवेनि቗ኋ प1ण करन पर उ्ሴतर वेतनमन क लाभी ቚኋ्቎ हे!ग। इसस स्पቖኍ हे. दिक निवेभीगये भीत& निनयेम5 क अनसर प1णत6 अथवे आनि9क रूप म स቗ኋ भीत& हेत निन቗ኋरिरत सवेग पर येदिदु क!ई 9सक<ये सवेक वेरन अथवे पदु!्ቐनित स निनये/ हे!त हे. त! उस उस सवेग म उ/ वेरन अथवे पदु!्ቐनित क< नितनिथ स निनये/ मन -कर सवेग म निन቗ኋरिरत सवे क< अवेनि቗ኋ क पቐኋत समयेमन वेतनमन हेत उ्ሴतर वेतनमन क< प्ቔत हे!ग। 7. From perusal of clause 15 of the circular dated 28.04.2008, it has been clearly mentioned that, decision would be taken separately with respect to the specific class of the employee, which has not been mentioned in schedule-II with respect to the Kramonnati scheme. From the clarification dated 10.08.2009, there is no decision as per clause 15 of the circular dated 28.04.2008. The department while rejecting the representation of the petitioner held that the post of Non- Medical Supervisor (NMS) is 100% promotional post, which is not included in schedule-II of the circular dated 28.04.2008, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any time-bound pay scale. Further, when the circular came on 28.04.2008 and the clarification came on 10.08.2009 and the petitioner considered himself to be entitled for the time-bound pay scale, he ought to have claimed at that time itself, when the benefit of time bound pay scale was not extended to him, 5 but he claimed in the year 2013 i.e. after his retirement and filed the writ petition in the year 2015. In the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P/6), he disclosed that he has retired from service in the month of June, 2012, whereas he made his representation in the year 2013. There is no explanation from the petitioner, as to why he has not claimed the benefit during his tenure. The petitioner claimed the benefit of time-bound pay scale after his retirement, which suffers from delay and laches. 8. In view of the aforesaid consideration, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner could not make out any good ground to interfere with the petition and to grant second time-bound pay scale to him. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved