1 2025:CGHC:661 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4277 of 2014 1 - Rajesh Sharma S/o Shri Gajanand Sharma Aged About 40 Years R/o Ward No. 13, Beldarpara, Po Main Post Office Champa, Ps Champa, Civil And Revenue Distt Janjgir Champa, Cg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors S/o Through The Secretary, Department Of Public Health Engineering, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Dist Raipur, CG 2 - The Collector Distt Janjgir Champa, CG 3 - The Secretary, District Water And Sanitation Committee, Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Block Janjgir Champa, Dist Janjgir Champa, CG ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Roop Naik, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aman Tamboli, P. L. ({Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput}) Order on Board 06/01/2025 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following relief:- 10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/ mandamus whereby direct to the respondents to grant/ provide monthly contract 2 salary Rs.12740/- from November 2009 to March 2012 and Rs.15290/- from April 2012 to June 2012 in favour of the petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any appropriate orders/ directions in favour of the petitioner looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an advertisement was issued by respondent No.3 in the year 2009 for appointment on contract basis on various posts including the post of Block Coordinator. In pursuance to the advertisement (Annexure P-2), the petitioner made an application for appointment on the post of Block Coordinator on contract basis and he was found successful and vide order dated 11.11.2009 (Annexure P-3) he was appointed on the post of Block Coordinator (Contract). The petitioner served on the said post from November, 2009 to June 2012. He submits that according to Clause-2 of the appointment order, the salary of the contractually appointed officer/ employee will be as per the finance instruction 30/9 P. No. 292/ 289/ Finance/ Rule/ Four/ 2009, Raipur dated 09.09.2009 (wrongly mentioned as 02.02.2009 in Annexure P-3) and the petitioner was entitled to receive Rs. 12,740/- from the month of November, 2009 to the month of March, 2012. Thereafter as per further Finance Instruction No.11/2012 dated 31.03.2012, the petitioner was entitled to receive Rs.15,290/- per month from the month of April, 2012 to the month of June, 2012. The petitioner was paid only Rs.8000/- for the entire period for which he has worked on contract whereas the petitioner was entitled much higher salary. Therefore, he submits that the writ petition may be allowed and the relief as claimed may be granted to the petitioner. 3. Per contra, State counsel submits that as per the advertisement (Annexure P-2), the petitioner was only entitled to receive Rs.8,000/- per month therefore, he was paid Rs.8,000/- per month salary. He further submits that the writ petition was filed after a delay of about 2 years, therefore, he is not entitled to any relief which has been claimed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3 5. The salary of Block Coordinator on contract basis was shown to be Rs.8000/- per month in the advertisement (Annexure P-2), however the appointment order indicates that the salary of the petitioner would be in accordance with Finance Instruction No. 30/2009 dated 09.09.2009 (Annexure P-4) according to which an amount of Rs.12,740/- was to be paid to the petitioner. The said finance instruction was subsequently replaced by Finance Instruction No.11/2012 dated 31.03.2012 (Annexure P-5) and according to which the monthly salary of the petitioner will revise to Rs.15,290/- per month. This Court is not persuaded with the submission of State counsel that in the advertisement Rs.8,000/- was mentioned as monthly salary of the petitioner when the Finance Instruction No. 30/9 dated 09.09.2009 and Finance Instructions No.11/2012 dated 31.03.2012 speaks otherwise. The petitioner cannot be deprived of his legitimate claim in accordance with finance instructions issued from time to time. 6. The second submission is with regard to delay in filing the writ petition. Of course there is some delay in filing the writ petition but the right of the petitioner to receive the entitled salary cannot be curtailed mainly on the ground that the writ petition is filed after period of some delay. Therefore, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and submissions made at the bar, this writ petition is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner would be entitled to receive the amount of Rs. 12,740/- salary from the month of November, 2009 to March 2012 and Rs.15,290/- from the month of April, 2012 to June 2012 after adjusting the salary paid by the respondent to the petitioner. The remaining amount be paid to the petitioner within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant any interest. 7. With the above observations, the writ petition stands allowed. Sd/- ({Sachin Singh Rajput}) JUDGE Parul PARUL MITTAL Digitally signed by PARUL MITTAL Date: 2025.01.07 16:07:12 +0530