1 2025:CGHC:28905 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1175 of 2017 1 - Ramgopal Bhardwaj S/o Late Shri Makrand Singh, Aged About 70 Years Occupation- Retired Principal, R/o Village Dhurwakari, P. O. Pachpedi, P. S. Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Schedule Caste And Schedule Tribe Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralay, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner, Schedule Caste And Schedule Tribe Development Department, Indrawati Bhawan, New Mantralay, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Assistant Commissioner, Schedule Caste And Schedule Tribe Development Department, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Shrijita Kesharwani, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate For State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board REKHA SINGH Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH -2- 30.06.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to grant the higher pay scale to the petitioner in view of order dated 05.09.2000 (Annexure P-1) granted to the other employees of the education department. 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to allow the arrears of pension etc. 10.4 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to decide the representations made by the petitioner as Annexure P-4 within stipulated period. 10.5 Any other relief, which Hon'ble court deems fit and proper of the case, may be allowed. 10.6 Cost of the petition may also be given.” 2. Ms. Kesharwani, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Upper Division Teacher on 13.11.1973. He was promoted to the post of Lecturer in the year 1984 and thereafter he was promoted to the post of Principal High School. She would further submit that the State Government vide order dated 08.09.2000 granted a higher pay scale cum promotion to the teaching staff of the education department. 3 She would also submit that the pay scale of Rs.8000-275- 13500/- was granted to the promoted teaching staff. She would contend that Shri R.P. Ratre and Shri Ramlal Ramteke, who were at serial Nos. 129 & 132 in the seniority list, were extended that benefit but the name of the petitioner was not mentioned in that list. She would further contend that the petitioner got retired from services on 31.07.2010 from the post of Principal High School but till date, that benefit has not been extended despite repeated representations. She would pray that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner. 3. On the other hand, Ms. Shukla, the learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Ms. Kesharwani. She would submit that the petitioner was not entitled to a higher pay scale therefore such a benefit was not extended. She would lastly submit that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. It appears that the juniors to the petitioner namely, Shri R.P. Ratre and Shri Ramlal Ramteke, who were appointed after -4- the petitioner were extended the benefit of a higher pay scale pursuant to the order dated 08.09.2000. The petitioner made various representations but those representations remained unattended. 6. Taking into consideration the grievance raised by the petitioner, this petition at this juncture is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to make a fresh representation before respondent No.1 and in turn, the authority concerned is directed to decide the representation so made by the petitioner preferably within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in light of the order dated 8.9.2000. 7. With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present petition is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha