1 2025:CGHC:19251-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 284 of 2025 Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation Through Its Managing Director, C.I.D.C., Old P.H.Q., Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Finance Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. Director Local Fund Audit, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. Kaushal Prasad Kaushik S/o Late Shri Pusau Ram Kaushik Aged About 68 Years R/o Village Kureli, Post Sagar, Tahsil Takhatpur, Thana Hirri, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ...Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Anup Majumdar, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 29 .04.2025 1. Heard Mr. Anup Majumdar, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.04.30 11:11:54 +0530 2 appearing for respondents No. 1 & 2/State and Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 3 on I.A. No. 1 of 2025, which is an application for condonation of delay. 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the reasons mentioned in the application, we are of the considered opinion that sufÏcient cause has been shown in the application and accordingly, I.A. No. 1 of 2025 is allowed and delay of 75 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 21.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 675 of 2019 (Kaushal Prasad Kaushik vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 3/writ petitioner herein. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent No.3/writ petitioner had filed the writ petition bearing WPS No. 675 of 2019 seeking setting aside of order dated 05.01.2018 and 05.12.2017 by which recovery was initiated & deducted and further challenged the memo dated 19.07.2017 issued by the State and communicated to the appellant that the difference of revision of pay will be applicable w.e.f. 01.04.2012 and also challenged the memo dated 26.07.2017 issued by appellant by which it has been decided not to calculate notional salary prior to 01.04.2012. The respondent No. 3/writ petitioner also sought for implementation of the revised Pay Scale Rules, 2009 (for short, ‘Rules of 2009’) w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and recalculation of his retiral dues and it's arrear with interest w.e.f 01.01.2006. 3 5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent No. 3/writ petitioner was working as daily wager on the post of Time Keeper in the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short, ‘MPSRTC’) and was posted at Bilaspur Depot. He continuously worked till reorganization of the State of Madhya Pradesh carving out of State of Chhattisgarh and he was posted within territorial jurisdiction of Chhattisgarh. After dissolution of MPSRTC in the State of Chhattisgarh, services of respondent No. 3/writ petitioner have been placed under the appellant Corporation till his age of superannuation i.e. 30.11.2017. He also submits that the Chhattisgarh Government has incorporated Chhattisgarh Revision of Pay Rules, 2009, for its employees dated 13.10.2011 granted benefit of pay revision notionally from 01.01.2006 to the employees of State Government owned Public Undertakings, Corporations, Boards, Commissions and 100% aided non- government institutions including CIDC restricting monetary benefits from 01.01.2006 to 31.10.2011, which came into the force w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and accordingly, salary of the respondent No. 3/writ petitioner has already been revised in the year 2011 w.e.f. 01.01.2006. However, the respondent No. 3/writ petitioner was not given monetary benefits of pay revision from 01.01.2006 till 31.10.2011 and fixation was done only on notional basis, which was neither arbitrary nor violate Article 14 of the Constitution of the India. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that the respondent No. 3/ writ petitioner in his writ petition further pleaded that the recovery order of Rs. 15,209/- on account of wrong fixation of pay is not maintainable as the same is not an outcome out of his misrepresentation or fraud and no 4 recovery can be made as per Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih (white washer) & Others, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334. He further stated that the decision of granting pay revision benefits from the year 2011 and non consideration of salary arrears from 01.01.2006 to 31.10.2011 originated from the Notification dated 13.10.2011 issued by Finance and Planning Department, which is still in existence and the same circular has not been challenged till yet. The respondent No. 3/writ petitioner does not have any vested right to claim for pay revision benefits from a specific date and the same is dependent on the employer's conditions including the financial condition. He would submit that the State Government, Finance and Planning Department has issued Notification dated 13.10.2011 by which State Government has decided to grant financial benefits to the employees of State Government owned Public Undertakings, Corporation, Boards, Commissions, and 100% aided non-government institutions and the employees of the said organizations would not be entitled for any arrears. The State Government, Finance and Planning Department later on issued another Notification dated 02.03.2012 clarifying its stand on entitlement of benefit of pay revision stating that such Corporations/Boards and 100% aided non-government institutions can grant difference of salary of pay revision to its employees, if having their own financial resources and for this purpose the State Government will not provide any financial aid to them. 7. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge vide order dated 21.11.2024 has allowed the writ petition of the respondent No. 3/writ petitioner, thereby quashing the orders dated 05.12.2017, 19.07.2017 and 26.07.2017 and further 5 quashed the recovery order. The learned Single Judge has also directed the appellant and the State Government to pay the arrears of salary from the period 01.01.2006 to 31.10.2011 within four months. He also contented that the salary arrears was never sought as a relief by the respondent No. 3/writ petitioner, but the same has been granted. The notification dated 02.03.2012 has been issued in the light of notification dated 13.10.2011 and a bare perusal of the notification would make it clear that the same is not depriving employees of CIDC from any revised pay scale benefit and they have been granted the same from 01.11.2011. He would submit that the notification dated 02.03.2012 also further clarifies that the employees of State Government owned Public Undertakings, Corporations, Boards, Commissions not having own source of income, won't be able to receive arrears for the period commencing from 01.01.2006 to 31.10.2011. The respondent No. 3/writ petitioner without showing similarity between him and State government employees, cannot seek revised pay scale benefit from a particular date as a vested right. 8. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for appellant that the State Government, Transport Department has also passed an order dated 30.11.2011 granting of benefit of pay scale to the employees of erstwhile Corporation in the line of above Circular dated 13.10.2011, and the appellant also issued separate order dated 02.12.2012. He further stated that the learned Single Judge without establishing the similarity of service between State Government employees and Corporation employees, has granted the revised pay scale benefit from 01.01.2006, which is not a vested right of the respondent No. 3/writ petitioner. The impugned order 6 does not nullify the notification dated 13.10.2011 from where the right to claim revised benefits originated. The learned Single Judge erred in granting salary arrears for the period 01.01.2006 to 31.10.2011 as the same was not sought by the respondent No. 3/writ petitioner as a relief. Hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 21.11.2024 is untenable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.3/writ petitioner submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 3/writ petitioner, in which no interference is called for. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and materials available on record. 11. In the writ petition, respondent No. 3/writ petitioner has sought setting aside of the orders dated 05.01.2018 & 05.12.2017. Annexure-P/1 (in the writ petition) dated 05.01.2018 is with respect to the deduction made from the retiral dues of respondent No. 3/writ petitioner of Rs.15,209/- on account of excess payment and the order dated 05.12.2017 is rejection of representation submitted by respondent No.3/writ petitioner on his claim for grant of monetary benefit from 01.01.2006 till 31.10.2011 and further, representation against recovery of excess payment of Rs.15,209/-. With respect to the issue of grant of monetary benefit based on the pay revision rules and 6th Pay Commission came up for consideration before this Court in WPS No. 697 of 2013 (Iqbal Ahmed vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), who are 7 employees of the same department i.e. appellant herein. In the said batch of writ petitions, learned Single Judge has held as under:- “5. Though a decision has been taken vide letter dated 02.03.2012 by the State Government not to make payment of arrears of the revised pay-scale to the employees from 01.01.2006 to 31.10.2011, no reason has been assigned in this regard. The decision appears to be unreasonable, unfair, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 6. Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Bihar State Beverages Corpn. Ltd. (supra) and Satya Brata Chowdhury (supra) and considering the fact that no reason has been assigned by the State in Circular dated 02.03.2012, the same is hereby quashed. 7. As the Circular dated 02.03.2012 has already been quashed meaning thereby the petitioners would be entitled to get the benefit of the 6th pay commission and other revisions of salary from 01.01.2006 till 31.10.2011. Thereafter, the State Authorities are directed to calculate the amount of arrears of salary of the petitioners and to make payment and decide the representation subject to verification of the amount claimed by the petitioners preferably within a period of 150 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 12. The above order passed in the writ petition was assailed by appellant herein by way of filing writ appeal bearing WA No. 622 of 2024 and the said writ appeal was dismissed vide order dated 30.09.2024. In the writ appeal, learned counsel for the appellant therein i.e. respondent 8 No. 3 in the writ petition, has made submission on the circular dated 13.10.2011, which is recorded in paragraph 6 of the order. 13. From aforementioned facts of the case when the counsel for appellant therein i.e. respondent No. 3 in the writ petition, once made a submission on the circular dated 13.10.2011, it cannot be said that the said circular was not considered while deciding/disposing the writ appeal. 14. While passing the impugned order, learned Single Judge held that as the issue with respect to grant of monetary benefit and arrears of the salary from 01.01.2006 till 31.10.2011 has already been decided by the Division Bench of this Court, this Court is bound to allow the writ petition with respect to the said relief. Therefore, orders dated 05.12.2017, 19.07.2017 & 26.07.2017 are quashed. The respondent No. 3/writ petitioner is held entitled for monetary benefit of arrears of the salary for the period from 01.01.2006 to 31.10.2011. 15. Learned Single Judge further held that with respect to second relief sought for in the writ petition against the recovery of Rs.15,209/- on the ground of excess payment, law in this regard is settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rafiq Masih (supra) wherein it was held that the recovery of excess payment from Class-III employees, is impermissible. The aforementioned decision was thereafter considered with approval by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Thomas Daniel vs. State of Kerala, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 536. 16. In view of aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, as respondent No. 3/writ petitioner being Class-III employee and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, order of recovery is also not sustainable and 9 accordingly, order dated 05.01.2018 and subsequent orders dismissing the representation against recovery is rightly been quashed. Respondents (in the writ petition) are directed to pay amount of Rs.15,209/- to the respondent No. 3/writ petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of order. If amount is not returned within the aforementioned period, the said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum till its reliazation. Respondents (in the writ petition) are also directed to pay the arrears of salary for the period from 01.01.2006 to 31.10.2011 within period of four months from the date of receipt of the order. 17. Considering the pleadings made in writ appeal, submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also considering the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 3/writ petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. 18. Accordingly, the present writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan