1 2025:CGHC:16781 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3300 of 2018  Anil Singh S/o Indramani Singh, Aged About 51 Years Civil Reader Court District Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. District And Sessions Judge Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 2. Joint Director, Treasury, Account And Pension, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Principal Secretary, Law, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Registrar General, High Court Of Chhattisgarh At Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Tapan Chandra, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 4 : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Advocate For State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 09. 04.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records relating to this case. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.04.15 18:52:03 +0530 2 allow the petition and direct the respondent no. 1 to grant second higher time pay scale to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.04.2006 with interest. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition and quash the order dated 06.04.2010 (Annexure P/4), dated 03.02.2011 (Annexure P/6, dated 20.11.2012 (Annexure P/8), dated 29/30.04.2013 (Annexure P/10) and 29.05.2017 (Annexure P/14). 10.4 That any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper together with cost of the petition.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that initially, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Lower Division Clerk (A.G.-III) at District Establishment, District Court Ambikapur, Surguja on 28.01.1986. He would further submit that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Grade II vide order dated 07.05.2002. He would also submit that the benefit of step up pay scale was extended to the petitioner vide order dated 04.01.2005 with effect from 19.04.1999 and the benefit of second time scale pay was extended vide order dated 22.04.2014. He would contend that according to the circular issued by the State Government dated 28.04.2008, if any Government Servant has been promoted once or twice then also he would be entitled to get the benefit of the time scale pay after completion of 10 years of service. He would further contend that in the year 1996, the petitioner completed the first 10 years; in the year 2006, the second 10 years and in the year 2016, the third 10 years and thus, he was entitled to get the benefit of the third time scale pay in the year 2016, but till date only twice such benefits have been extended. He would also contend that representations were made by the petitioners and all the representations have been rejected by the respondent authorities vide order dated 06.04.2010, 03.02.2011, 22.11.2012, 29/30.04.2013 and 29.05.2017. He would pray to quash those orders. He would seek direction 3 to the respondent authorities to extend the benefit of third time scale pay. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Shashank Thakur, Advocate appearing for respondents No. 1 and 4 would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Chandra. He would submit that the petitioner was promoted to the post of A.G. II vide order dated 07.05.2002, and thus, there was no occasion for the department to extend the benefit of first time scale pay after the completion of 10 years or 20 years of services. He would further submit that for the first time, the benefit of time scale pay was extended to the petitioner vide order dated 04.01.2005 with effect from 19.04.1999, and for the second time, this benefit was extended vide order dated 22.04.2014, and thus, the grievance of the petitioner has already been redressed. He would also submit that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. Government Advocate appearing for the State would support the contention made by Mr. Thakur. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 6. Perusal of Annexure P/1, the circular dated 28.04.2008, particularly clause 4 makes it clear that even the Government servant who has been promoted once or twice during his service tenure, would be entitled to get the benefit of time scale pay after the completion of every 10 years of service. This circular further says that if a Government Servant has not been extended the benefit of time scale pay and has completed 20 years of service, he would be entitled to get the benefit of the second time scale pay. 7. It appears that the respondent authorities have not considered the circular dated 28.04.2008 properly; therefore, the orders dated 06.04.2010 (Annexure P/4), dated 03.02.2011 (Annexure P/6), dated 20.11.2012 4 (Annexure P/8), dated 29/30.04.2013 (Annexure P/10) and 29.05.2017 (Annexure P/14) are hereby quashed. Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby allowed. 8. The matter is remitted back to respondent No. 4 to decide the claim of the petitioner afresh. The petitioner would be at liberty to make a fresh representation before respondent No. 4, and in turn, the authority concerned is directed to decide it, preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant