1 2025:CGHC:10065 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1498 of 2025 1 - Pawan Kumar Baghel S/o Late Jivrakhan Lal Baghel Aged About 53 Years Working As Chowkidar, Govt. Pre-Metric, Scheduled Caste Boys Hostel, Bhansoj, Block- Arang, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Sukhchand Jangde S/o Late Shyamlal Jangde Aged About 58 Years Working As Chowkidar, Pre-Metric, Scheduled Caste Boys Hostel, Pension Bada, Block- Dharsinwa, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Bhagwan Das Gendre S/o Chetan Das Gendre Aged About 51 Years Working As Waterman, Office Of Tribal Welfare Department, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Chandrashekhar Sahu S/o Ramprasad Sahu Aged About 52 Years Working As Cook, Govt. Boys Hostel, Sundernagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Kanhaiya Lal Sidar S/o Monu Dou Sidar Aged About 54 Years Working As Chowkidar, Govt. Pre-Metric, Scheduled Tribe Boys Hostel, Pension Bada, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribe Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Commissioner, Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribe Development Department, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 (C.G.) 3 - The Director, Directorate Of Public Instructions, Atal Nagar, New Raipur (C.G.) 4 - The Collector And Assistant Commissioner (Tribal Development Branch), Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Harish Khuntiya, Advocate For State : Ms. Poorva Tiwari, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 28.02.2025 1. Heard Mr. Harish Khuntiya, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Ms. Poorva Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent/s. 2. By this petition, the petitioners have prayed for following relief/s: “10.1 That, the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to grant regular pay scale to the petitioners under the consistency services immediately on completion of 3 years services from the initial date of appointment and direction be given to the respondent departments to give difference of pay to the petitioners and all the benefits on the basis of equal pay for equal work. 10.2 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 3 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners were appointed on the post of Chowkidar/Waterman/Cook under the respondent No.1 department on 18.08.1987 as daily wager employee on Collectors’ rate and, therefore, they are entitled to get benefit of regular pay scale after completion of three years of service. However, he has been granted regular pay-scale from 09.09.2008. He further submits that similar relief has already been granted to certain persons whose services were also regularized in the State Government. He refers to an order dated 20.04.2018 and submits that in the like situation, few of other persons, who were similarly placed, have been given the benefit of regular pay scale on completion of three years of service. 4. At this juncture, learned State Counsel submits that it would be better if petitioners file a detailed fresh representation before Respondent No.4 along with all relevant documents in support of their claim including the orders of the State Government as also the orders of the High Court in other connected petitions. He further submits that in case representation is made, Respondent No.4 will decide the same at the earliest. 5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel has not opposed the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners. 6. Considering facts of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties, writ petition is disposed of at this stage giving liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh representation before 4 respondent No.4 along with all relevant documents in this regard whereby similar benefits were given to other persons. On making such representation, respondent No.4 shall consider and decide the same, in accordance with law within a period of ‘90 days’ from the date of receipt of copy of such representation. 7. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion so far as the entitlement of petitioner is concerned. The respondents-authorities shall be free to take a decision purely in accordance with the rules governing the field. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha