1 2025:CGHC:44284 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1778 of 2021 1 - C.R.Navratan S/o Deendayal Navratan Aged About 50 Years R/o 27/466, New Shanti Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Tribal And Scheduled Caste Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Antyavasayi Sahakari Vitta Avam Vikas Nigam Maryadit, Through Its Managing Director, Sector 24, Near Mukhtangan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Ruchi Nagar, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Topilal Bareth, P.L. For Respondent No.2 : Shri Abhishek Gupta, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 01.09.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:- NIRMALA RAO 2 “10.1 That This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the arrears of salary of the petitioner till the date of his dismissal from service. 10.2 That the consequently the This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to hold and declare that the petitioner is entitled to the Arrears of 7th Pay Scale till the date of his Service. 10.3 Any other relief(s), direction(s), which Hon'ble the Court deems fit, and proper, in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, who was working as an Executive Officer under respondent No.2, was dismissed from service vide order dated 18.5.2018 issued by respondent No.2. She would contend that according to clause 6(4) of the Chhattisgarh Revision of Pay Rules, 2017, the petitioner is entitled for arrears of salary and the benefit of the 7th Pay Commission. She would submit that a representation was made by the petitioner before respondent No.2 on 17.2.2020 but till date, it has not been decided. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. They would submit that as the petitioner was convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 420 & 120B of IPC and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which led to his dismissal from service. They would contend that, in view of the dismissal, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefits claimed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on record. 3 5. Considering the fact that Clause 6(4) of the Rules, 2017, provides that persons whose services were terminated on or after 1st January, 2016 would be entitled to benefits under the said Rules, the petition is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to make a fresh representation before respondent No.2 and in turn, the said authority is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law, preferably, within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the representation. 6. With the aforesaid observation(s), this petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi