Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 12727 (CHH)

VED RAM PATEL v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPS/2225/2023 · 2025-04-01

Shri Bibhu Datta Guru

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 / 3 2025:CGHC:15358 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2225 of 2023 1 - Ved Ram Patel S/o Late Chhotu Ram Patel Aged About 52 Years Workshop Assistant, Boys Industrial Training Institute Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Skill Development And Technical Education And Employment Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector (Tribal Development) Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Collector (Tribal Welfare) Korba (C.G.) 4 - Commissioner, Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, Backward Class And Minority Welfare Department Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Collector (Tribal Development) Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 6 – Director, Employment & Training Women Polytechnic Campus, Byron Bazar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Uttam Pandey, Advocate with Mr. Vikash Kumar Bajpai, Advocate. For Respondents/ State : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.04.02 17:40:20 +0530 2 / 3 01/04/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction towards the respondent authorities to extend the benefit of regularization in favour of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 08/12/1994 on the post of Workshop Assistant with all consequential benefit. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on account of death of his father, the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground in the post of Chowkidar on Collector rate on 08/12/1994. Subsequently, the petitioner was given a regular pay scale on the post of Workshop Assistant by order dated 19/08/1998, thereafter, the petitioner made several representations and requested the authorities for grant of benefit of regularization from the date of initial appointment i.e. 08/12/1994. However, the same has not been given to the petitioner, whereas the benefit of regularization from the date of initial appointment has been extended in favour of one Smt. Jamuna Bai and one Ramgwal Yadav. 3. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, would oppose the aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and stated that the other similarly situated persons namely Smt. Jamuna Bai and Ramgwal Yadav have been given the regular pay scale on the post of Peon, whereas the benefit of regular pay scale has been given to the petitioner on the post of Workshop Assistant which is a technical post and for that, the petitioner obtained the technical certificate and hence, he cannot claim parity with the 3 / 3 aforesaid other similar situated employees, as he has been given the regular pay scale of higher post that too of a technical nature. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the documents. 5. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner initially appointed on the post of Chowkidar on Collector rate on compassionate ground in the year 1994. However, on account of acquisition of higher qualification of technical cadre, the post of Workshop Assistant was given to the petitioner in the year 1998 and extended the benefit of regular pay scale, whereas the similarly situated persons namely Smt. Jamuna Bai and Ramgwal Yadav have been given the benefit of regular pay scale on the post of Peon. Thus, the petitioner cannot claim parity at par with those employees, and as such, the impugned action on the part of the respondents cannot be stated as illegal and arbitrary. The benefit of regular pay scale on the post of Workshop Assistant has rightly been extended to the petitioner after obtaining the requisite technical qualification. The action of the authorities is just and proper warranting no interference of this Court. The petitioner failed to establish his case by furnishing cogent and sufficient reason. 6. In the result, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. SD/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Amardeep