1 (WPS No. 10289 of 2019) CGHC010404552019 2026:CGHC:36513 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 10289 of 2019 1 - Nawabuddin Sheikh S/o Late Shri Jalaluddin Sheikh, Aged About 71 Years R/o House No. 14/88, Sheikh Palace, Moudhapara, Near Shiv Mandir, Raipur, Pollice Station Moudhapara, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home (Police), Mahanadi, Mantralaya, Police Station And Post Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Director General Of Police (D.G.P.), Police Headquarters (Phq), Near Mahanadi, Mantralaya, Police Station And Post Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Additional Director General Of Police (A.D.G.P.), Administration, Police Headquarters (Phq), Near Mahanadi, Mantralaya, Police Station And Post Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Additional Director (Finance), Police Headquarters (Phq), Near Mahanadi, Mantralaya, Police Station And Post Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) For Petitioner :- Mr. Rishabh Dev Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate For Respondent:- Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Panel Lawyer ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Digitally signed by ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Date: 2026.08.19 11:09:46 +0530 2 (WPS No. 10289 of 2019) SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 17.08.2026 1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 08.12.2017 (Annexure P/7), passed by respondent No.3 & order dated 06.02.2019 (Annexure P/9), passed by respondent No.2 and to direct the respondent authorities to give the benefit of pay fixation to the petitioner from 14.10.1993 to 31.12.2005. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s application dated 11.10.2017 for fixation of pay scale has been rejected by the respondent authority by passing an unreasoned and non-speaking order, which is absolutely unjustified and uncalled for. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and this writ petition deserves to be allowed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would support the impugned order. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 3 (WPS No. 10289 of 2019) 5. Admittedly, the application preferred by the petitioner for fixation of pay scale has been dismissed by the respondent authority without assigning any reason and by passing a non-speaking order. In that view of the matter, the non- speaking and unreasoned order dated 08.12.2017 (Annexure P/7) & order dated 06.02.2019 (Annexure P/9) are hereby quashed. The matter is remitted to the concerned respondent authority for considering and deciding the application filed by the petitioner afresh by passing a reasoned and speaking order, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 6. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands finally disposed of. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge @d!t!