Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 10382 (CHH)

HEMULAL CHELAK v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPS/1437/2025 · 2025-02-25

Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:9693 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1437 of 2025 1 - Hemulal Chelak S/o Late Narbhuvan Lal Chelak Aged About 58 Years Working As Waterman, Govt. Scheduled Caste Boys Hostel, Kharora, Block- Tilda, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Jethuram Banjare S/o Late Feradas Banjare Aged About 59 Years Working As Waterman, Govt. Pre Metric Boys Hostel, Khauna, Block- Tilda, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Ashok Kumar Bandhe S/o Late Faguwaram Bandhe Aged About 54 Years Working As Waterman, Govt. Scheduled Caste Boys Hostel, Tilda-Nevra, Block- Tilda, 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 (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 is taken from Case Information System) Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.03.01 11:56:01 +0530 2 For Petitioners : Shri Harish Khuntiya, Advocate For State/Respondents : Shri Abhishek Gupta, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 25/02/2025 1. By this petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs: “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.” 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were appointed on the post of Waterman under respondent No.1 department in the year 1992 and 1995 as daily wager employees on Collector’s rate and subsequently vide order dated 22.8.2009 the petitioners were regularised under contingency establishment. Therefore, they are entitled to get benefit of regular pay scale immediately on their completion of 3 years of service from the initial date of appointment. 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 order dated 28.9.2018 (Annexure P-5) and submits that in the like situation, few of other persons, who were similarly 3 placed, have been given the benefit of regular pay scale on completion of 3 years of service. 3. At this juncture, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that it would be better if the 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. 4. Considering the facts of the case and the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh representation before Respondent No.4 along with all relevant documents in this regard whereby similar benefits have been given to other similarly situated 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 the representation. 5. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion so far as entitlement of the petitioners is concerned. The respondents-authorities shall be free to take a decision purely in accordance with the rules governing the matter. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Gopal Singh