1 2025:CGHC:46568 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5252 of 2023 1 - Ashwani Kumar Yadu S/o Ganesh Ram Yadu Aged About 56 Years Working As Vaccinator, At Outline Dispensary Akladongari, Block Dhamtari, District : Dhamtari, 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 Services, Directorate, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Deputy Director Veterinary Services Dhamtari, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 4 - Joint Director Treasurer, Account And Pension Division Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - The District Treasury Officer Dhamtari, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... 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 1993. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that initially petitioner appointed as Vaccinator on daily wages and subsequently, vide order dated 28.1.1992, petitioner was regularized on the post of Vaccinator. After regularization, petitioner became entitled for grant of annual increment from the year 1993 as also for time- bound pay scale from the year 2002. However, benefit of annual increment is extended to petitioner w.e.f 25.10.2005 whereas, benefit of time- bound pay scale in the year 2015. Petitioner submitted representations (Annexure P-6) before respondents No.2 & 3 for payment of arrears of annual increment and time- bound pay-scale from 1993 and 2002 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 25.7.2023 (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