Page No.1 of 4 IN WPS-619-2019 2026:CGHC:4962 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 619 of 2019 1 - Hublal Pandey (Dead) Through Legal Heirs In Compliance Of Honorable Court Dated 19-12-2024. 1.1 - Smt. Vidya Pandey W/o Late Shri Hublal Pandey, Aged About 68 Years R/o C-316-A, Gole Chowk, Rohinipuram Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 1.2 - Shrikant Pandey S/o Late Shri Hublal Pandey, Aged About 43 Years R/o C-316-A, Gole Chowk, Rohinipuram Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioners Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Higher Education Department , Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director Directorate Of Higher Education, Indrawati Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Registrar Pt. Ravi Shanker Shukla University Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioners : Mr. Manoj Kumar Dubey, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.03 : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal (Order on Board) 28.01.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the respondents to SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Page No.2 of 4 IN WPS-619-2019 release his salary for the post of Assistant Registrar with other benefits for the period he worked on the said post i.e. from 03.11.2000 to 31.11.2009. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner was holding the post of Section Officer at the relevant point of time, but he was given additional charge of Assistant Registrar and, he worked on the said post for the period starting from 03.11.2000 to 31.11.2009, therefore, he would be entitled for pay and allowance of the post of Assistant Registrar for the aforesaid period. Learned counsel would rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the matter of State of Punjab v. BK Dhir 1 to bolster his submissions. Hence, the present writ petition be allowed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and by taking this Court to the order dated 08.11.2000 (Annexure-P/01), by which the petitioner was given the charge of Assistant Registrar, learned counsel vehemently argued that as per said order, for performing the duty on higher post i.e. Assistant Registrar, the petitioner will be entitled for an allowance to the tune of 6% of his basic pay or Rs.500/- per day and, therefore, he is not entitled for any salary or allowance for working on the post of Assistant Registrar for the period starting from 03.11.2000 to 31.11.2009. It is also submitted that there is delay of 10 years in 1 (2017) 9 SCC 337 Page No.3 of 4 IN WPS-619-2019 filing the writ petition, as the instant petition filed in the year 2019 and petitioner stood retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.2009. As such, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 5. In the case at hand, a careful perusal of the record would show that initially the petitioner was holding his substantive post of Section Officer and, thereafter, vide order dated 08.11.2000 (Annexure-P/01) he was given the charge of Assistant Registrar and, order dated 08.11.2000 (Annexure-P/01) itself provides that for working on the post of Assistant Registrar, the petitioner would be entitled for allowance to the tune of 6% of his basic pay or Rs.500/- per day and, as per affidavit filed by the respondent, the said amount was also extended from time to time and, ultimately, the said allowance has already been paid to the petitioner and he stood retired on 30.11.2009 on attaining the age of superannuation. As such, it is not a case where the petitioner worked on higher post of Assistant Registrar and he has not been paid allowance for it. Even otherwise, the petitioner himself agreed while taking charge of Assistant Registrar in compliance of order 08.11.2000 (Annexure-P/01) that he will be entitled for allowance to the tune of 6% of his basic pay or Rs.500/- per day for performing duty on the Page No.4 of 4 IN WPS-619-2019 said post. Therefore, the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in the matter of B.K. Dhir (supra) is clearly distinguishable under the facts and circumstances of the present case and could not be made applicable qua the petitioner herein. Thus, for the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition and same is liable to be dismissed and, more particularly, when there is delay of 10 years in filing the writ petition because the instant petition was filed on 23.01.2019, whereas the petitioner stood retired on 30.11.2009. 6. Accordingly, the petition sans substance and is hereby dismissed. No cost. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if