1 2025:CGHC:40481 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 110 of 2022 1 - Ram Kumar Verma S/o Late Shri Shyam Lal Verma, Aged About 70 Years Retired Charge Man R/o Milan Chowk, P.S. Civil Line Bilaspur Tahsil And District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Technical And Higher Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director, Department Of Technical Education, Indravati Bhawan, Block-3, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Principal, Govt. Engineering College Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For petitioner : Mr. B.L. Sahu, Advocate For State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 12.08.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) : “(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant time bound pay scale with interest as per circular issued by the State Govt. within stipulated time, in the interest of justice. (ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, -2- may also be granted.” 2. Mr. Sahu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed on the post of ‘Charge- Man’ under the respondent authorities in the year 1987 on ad-hoc basis and thereafter, his services were regularized vide order dated 30.03.1993. He would further submit that the petitioner got retired on account of superannuation on 30.04.2014. He would contend that the petitioner has not been extended benefit of time scale pay though he completed 26 years of service under the respondents. He would further contend that the petitioner is entitled for time scale pay according to the circular issued by the State from time to time after completion of 10 years and 20 years of service. He would also contend that the representation was made by the petitioner before respondent No.2 on 10.03.2017 but till date, same has not been decided. He would pray for a direction to respondent No.2 to decide pending representation. 3. On the other hand, Ms. Shukla, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents would oppose the submissions. She would submit that the post of ‘Charge-Man’ is not included in the circular issued with regard to time scale pay, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for time scale pay. She would further submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 5. The petitioner who was working on the post of ‘Charge-Man’ was appointed against sanctioned and vacant post under the 3 respondents. He worked for 26 years. He got retired from services on 30.04.2014 but he was not paid time scale pay during his service period. 6. The contention made by Ms. Shukla that the circular issued by the State Government with regard to time scale pay, wherein, post of ‘Charge-Man’ is not included, appears to be discriminatory as similar benefit has been extended to other Government servants. 7. Considering the above-discussed facts, the petitioner is permitted to make a representation before respondent No.2 within a period of 30 days and in turn, the authority concerned is directed to decide it strictly in accordance with law preferably within a period of 90 days. 8. With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha