1 / 3 2025:CGHC:2271 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3712 of 2018 • Ramkripal Nai S/o- Late Shri Gurucharan Prasad Nai, Aged about 60 years, R/o- Near Bhatti Road, Sharda Bhavan, Ambikapur, District- Sarguja (C.G.), Permanent R/o Mouja Diha, Iiahabad Road, Village- Manganva, Tehsil & Police Station Mangnva, District Riva (M.P.) ... Petitioner Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Department of Energy, Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Chhattisgarh State Renewable Energy Development Agency, Through- Chief Executive Officer, Near Energy Park, VIP Road, District Raipur,, Chhattisgarh 3. Director, Chhattisgarh State Renewable Energy Development Authority, Near Energy Park, VIP Road, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Verma, Advocate For State/Res-1 : Mr. Lav Kumar Sharma, Panel Lawyer For Res-2 & 3 : Mr. Devershi Thakur, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 13/01/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing Respondents for giving the 2nd time scale to petitioner from the date when it was due. 10.2 Any other relief, which Hon'ble Court deems fit, and proper in the circumstances of the case and petition may kindly be allowed with costs.” Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI 2 / 3 2. Mr. Sunil Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner was working on the post of Helper in the office of respondent No. 2. He would contend that the services of the petitioner were transferred from the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh to the State of Chhattisgarh in the year 2003. He would further submit that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Helper on 01.04.1983. He would also submit that after completion of 10 years of service, the first time scale pay was granted to the petitioner in the year 1991. He would state that after completion of the further 10 years, the petitioner was entitled to get the IInd time scale pay of Rs.5200-20200 +1900 in the year 2001, but this benefit has not been extended to the petitioner and he got retired from services on 31.12.2018. 3. Mr. Devershi Thakur, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 and 3 would submit that the services of the petitioner were relieved from the State of Madhya Pradesh on 31.03.2003. He would further submit that when the petitioner joined in the State of Chhattisgarh, he was getting the salary of Rs.5200-20200+1900 and thereafter again the petitioner moved an application for grant of IInd time scale pay which was not permissible. He would contend that there was no sanction of the finance department to grant enhanced salary to the petitioner and there was no such prescribed pay scale for the post of Helper as claimed by the petitioner. 4. Mr. Lav Kumar Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would support the contention made by Mr. Devershi Thakur. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 3 / 3 6. Admittedly, the petitioner joined in the State of Chhattisgarh in the year 2003 and at that time, he was getting the pay scale of 5200-20200+ grade pay of Rs.1900, whereas the sanctioned pay scale of Helper in the State of Chhattisgarh under the respondent department was 5200- 20200+ grade pay of Rs.1800 and thus, the petitioner was getting the higher pay scale than sanctioned in the State of Chhattisgarh. The petitioner was appointed to the post of Helper in the year 1983 and first time bound pay scale was granted to the petitioner in the year 1991, after completion of 08 years of service. The petitioner worked in the State of Madhya Pradesh till 2003 and he completed the next 10 years of service in the year 2001, but he never approached the authorities in the State of Madhya Pradesh to extend the benefit of IInd time bound pay scale. 7. As the pay scale which the petitioner was claiming was not permissible according to the sanctioned pay scale for the post of Helper in the State of Chhattisgarh, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the respondent authorities have rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner. Thus, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order impugned dated 12.12.2014. 8. Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti