1 2025:CGHC:1441 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 526 of 2018 1 - Surajbhan Singh Thakur Aged About 61 Years Assistant Grade 2, District Treasury, Raigarh, R/o Rajput Bhawan, Madhuban, Modipara, Raigarh Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Finance, New Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Directorate Of Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Chhattisgarh, Through Director, Block - 1, First Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Treasury Officer, Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents ________________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents/ State : Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, P.L. ________________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 09.01.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “i. To kindly call for the records of the case from the respondents. ii. To kindly direct the respondents to immediately pay the arrears of Time Scale Pay to the petitioner with effect from 14/05/2006 with interest on delayed payment. iii. To kindly direct the respondents to suitably modify the order dated 16/11/2017 (Annexure P/18) and grant consequential pay from 21/12/2016 onwards to the post of Assistant Grade 1 to the petitioner with interest. Digitally signed by SMT NIRMALA RAO 2 iv. To kindly direct the respondents to modify the order dated 16/11/2017 (Annexure P/10) and consider the petitioner for posting at Raigarh in accordance with law. v. To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that after completion of 20 years of service the petitioner was not paid arrears of time pay-scale and he is entitled to get that benefit from 14.5.2006. He would further contend that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Grade-III under respondent No.3. He would submit that vide order dated 16.11.2017 the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-I with effect from 21.12.2016. He would further submit that juniors to the petitioner were promoted to the post of A.G.-I on 21.12.2016 and the petitioner was not extended benefit of salary and other consequential benefits from that date. He would submit that the consequential benefits, including the monetary benefits, were denied to the petitioner on the ground that the ACRs of the petitioner were not available with the Departmental Promotion Committee. He would pray to direct the respondents to extend the benefit of pay-scale, time-bound pay-scale, time-scale pay, arrears of salary and other benefits from 21.12.2016. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that the petitioner was promoted to the post of A.G.-I on 16.11.2017, and from that date, all benefits have been extended to him. With regard to time-scale pay, he would submit that the petitioner approached this Court at a belated stage, therefore, he is not entitled to get that benefit. He would further submit that the petitioner failed to submit details of the immovable property to the employer, and as such, the benefit would not 3 extended. He would contend that the relevant documents were submitted by the petitioner only after filing the writ petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 5. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has claimed arrears of salary, which would also affect his pension, such a claim cannot be refused on the ground of delay. Regarding the arrears of salary and other benefits due to the belated promotion, the respondent authorities are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner, as the petitioner has already submitted the relevant documents. 6. Considering the above-stated facts, the petition is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to make a representation before respondent No.2 within a period of 15 days and in turn, the said authorities are directed to consider and take appropriate decision on such representation preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi