1 2025:CGHC:46568 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4999 of 2023 1 - Rajau Ram Markam S/o Late Fatte Singh Markam Aged About 62 Years (Retired Vaccinator) At Mobile Veterinary Unit Dhamtari, R/o Village- Chiprel, Block Keshkal, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Veterinary Services, Atal Nagar, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Veterinary Sevices, Directorate, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Deputy Director Veterinary Sevices Dhamtari, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 4 - Joint Director Treasurer, Account And Pension Division Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - The District Treasury Officer District- Dhamtari, C.G. ... Respondent(s) RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jeet Ram Patel, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey, G.A. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 11/09/2025 1. Grievance raised in this writ petition is that petitioner is not being paid annual increment since the date of his regular appointment on the post of Vaccinator i.e. from the year 1989. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that initially petitioner appointed as Vaccinator on daily wages and subsequently, vide order dated 1.4.1988, petitioner was regularized on the post of Vaccinator. After regularization, petitioner became entitled for grant of annual increment from the year 1989 as also for time- bound pay scale from the year 1999. However, benefit of annual increment is extended to petitioner w.e.f 13.10.2005 whereas, benefit of time- bound pay scale in the year 2015. Petitioner submitted representations (Annexure P-5) before respondents No.2 & 3 for payment of arrears of annual increment and time- bound pay-scale from 1989 and 1999 respectively, but till date no decision has been taken on it. He submits that at this stage grievance of petitioner would be redressed if a direction is issued to respondents No. 2 & 3 to consider and decide pending representations of petitioner expeditiously. 3 3. Learned State Counsel would submit that as petitioner is not pressing this writ petition on merit, therefore, he is not having any objection to limited prayer made on behalf of petitioner. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused documents filed along with writ petition. 5. Considering entire facts and circumstances of case and limited prayer made by counsel for petitioner, which is not opposed by State Counsel, this writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No. 2 & 3 to consider and decide petitioners' representations dated 15.3.2023 (Annexure P-6) in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within outer limit of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 6. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat