1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3284 of 2021 Shukul Ram Yadav, S/o Late Suritram, Aged About 54 Years Occupation Peon / Khalasi, Rural Engineering Services, Sub Division Pali, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1- State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur, Atal Nagar District - Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2- Chief Engineer, Panchayat And Rural Development, Vikas Bhawan, Civil Lines, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3- Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Services, Division Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh. 4- Development Commissioner, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Yogendra Chaturvedi, Advocate For State : Mr. Abhyuday Tripathi, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order Sheet 25/03/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “i. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 10/05/2019 passed by respondent no.3. 2 ii. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the petitioner, the arrears of his Salary from his initial date of appointment. iii. Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner. iv. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was engaged as a ‘daily rated employee’. He claimed arrears of salary for the period from 01.12.1986 to 10.06.1997, on the ground that similarly situated employees were regularized and granted regular pay scale with effect from 01.01.1990. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the services of the petitioner were regularized vide order dated 08.09.2004 but, he is entitled to parity with similarly situated employees and, therefore, a direction may be issued for grant of arrears of salary from the date of his initial appointment till the date of his regularization. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent(s) would submit that the petitioner worked as a ‘daily rated employee’ till the date of his regularization and, therefore, he is not entitled to claim arrears of salary on a regular pay scale for any period prior to 08.09.2004. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was initially engaged as a daily rated employee and his services were regularized vide order dated 08.09.2004. The question that arises for consideration is whether a daily rated employee, whose services were regularized at a later point of time, is entitled to claim retrospective arrears of salary on the basis of alleged parity with other employees. 3 7. In this regard, it is well settled principles of law that regular pay scale is admissible only upon valid regularization in accordance with law. 8. The petitioner has failed to establish that he is similarly situated with respect to those employees, whose services were regularized earlier and legal right accrued in his favour prior to 08.09.2004. 9. Mere regularization of some employees at an earlier point of time does not confer an automatic or retrospective right upon the petitioner, particularly when his own regularization was effected much later and in accordance with applicable rules. 10.In absence of any statutory provision, policy decision, the claim for arrears from 01.01.1990 till 08.09.2004 is unsustainable. 11.Consequently, the impugned order dated 10.05.2019 does not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness, or infirmity warranting interference by this Court under writ jurisdiction. The petition, being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed. 12.No order as to costs. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim