1 2025:CGHC:14060 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4981 of 2011  Domar Singh Baghel Aged About 56 Years S/o G.L. Baghel R/o G 38 Nutan Colony Sarkanda Distt. Bilaspur Cg ... Petitioner versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Law & Legislative Affairs, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of General Administration, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh , Through its Registrar General, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. State of Madhya Pradesh, Through its Secretary, Vallabh Bhawan, Mantralaya, Bhopal (MP) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Topilal Bareth, Advocate For State : Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, Dy. Advocate General For Respondent No. 3 Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 04.03.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 11.05.2011 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the respondent No. 3 by which the representation of the petitioner for fixation of pay has been MANISH YADAV Digitally signed by MANISH YADAV Date: 2025.03.25 10:36:51 +0530 2 rejected. 2. Brief facts as reflected from the record are that the petitioner was initially appointed in the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal Jabalpur on 31.10.1998 on the post of Stenographer in the pay scale of 4500-125-7000, thereafter, he was posted at Administrative Tribunal Bench at Raipur. On reorganization of Government of Madhya Pradesh as State of Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh a policy decision has been taken by the State of Madhya Pradesh to abolish the State Administrative Tribunal on 17.04.2003. Accordingly, all the employees working in Tribunal were treated as surplus employees. 3. It is also the case of the petitioner that the State of Madhya Pradesh General Administrative Department vide its order dated 02.05.2003 has allowed them to be absorbed with the State Government as surplus employees, later on their services were absorbed in the High Court by the State of Chhattisgarh. On above factual matrix, it has been contended by the petitioner that he was initially appointed on 31.10.1998 and till date of absorption he was getting salary in the pay scale 4500-125-7000 after adding annual increment as per the rules, and on absorption with the High Court on 24.07.2007 his pay was fixed in the pay scale of 5500-175- 9000 on the post of AG-I/Stenographer and he was also granted one annual increment of Rs. 175/- accordingly, his basic salary was fixed at Rs. 5675/-. Thereafter, the petitioner and other employees of the Tribunal who have been absorbed in the High Court have submitted representations for re-fixation of pay with a prayer that their basic pay of the employees should be fixed in the 3 pay scale of 5500-9000/- which has been rejected on 11.05.2011 (Annexure P/1) which is being challenged in this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was getting salary in the pay scale of 4500-125-7000, but at the time of absorption he was already getting basic salary of Rs. 5500/-, therefore, his past services should be counted for the annual increment in the pay scale of 5500/-, as such, he should be given four increments in the pay scale of 5500/- so that he may get proper pay scale and would pray for allowing the writ petition. 5. Per contra counsel for the High Court opposing the submission would submit that initially the petitioner was getting salary in the pay scale 4500-125-7000/- and when he was absorbed in the High Court of Chhattisgarh, the pay scale of AG-I/Stenographer was 5500-175-9000/-. Accordingly, his salary has been fixed at the initial pay scale of 5500-175-9000/- and he has been granted one increment as per Fundamental Rule 22A, as such, there is no illegality on the part of the High Court and would pray for dismissal of writ petition. 6. Learned State counsel would also support the submission of learned counsel for the High Court. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents place on record with utmost satisfactions. 8. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the pay should be initially fixed in the pay scale of 5500/- thereafter, whatever the increment he has received while working with the Tribunal should be added. This submission cannot be considered as the pay scale of the post holding by the petitioner in 4 the State Administration Tribunal was 4500-125-7000/- whereas the pay scale of High Court for the post of AG-I/Stenographer is 5500-175-9000/-, accordingly, his basic salary was fixed at Rs. 5500/- which is initial pay scale of AG-I/Stenographer working in the High Court and one increment has already been added as per Rule 22(A) of the Fundamental Rules applicable to the Government servant on fixation of pay. Thus, there is no illegality on the part of the respondent in fixing the pay and rejecting the representation of petitioner. 9. The writ petition sans merit, deserves to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Manish