1 2025:CGHC:42233 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9194 of 2025 1 - Hemant Thakur S/o Late Shri Gaukaran Singh Thakur Aged About 32 Years Occupation Service, Presently Posted As Assistant Sub Inspector M, Police Headquarters, Special Branch, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 2 - Secretary, State Of Chhattisgarh Finance Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, District Raipur C.G. 3 - Director General Of Police, Head Quarters, Atal Nagar, District Raipur C.G. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Deputy A.G. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 20/08/2025 Heard. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working on the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector (M). He has filed the writ petition VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.22 11:46:32 +0530 2 for a direction to the respondent authorities for his pay fixation as per the Chaudhary Pay Commission, 1983 and also in the light of order dated 28.09.2013 (Annexure P/3) issued by the respondent No.3. He would further submit that in the WP No. 4563/2006, decided on 07.05.2009, this Court has affirmed the grant of higher pay-scale for the employees of ministerial staff, which was affirmed by the Hon’ble Division Bench vide order dated 03.05.2012, passed in WA No. 426 of 2011. He would also submit that the SLP (Civil) No. 13274 of 2013 filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was also dismissed and the benefits was extended to similarly situated employees vide order dated 03.12.2013, issued by the Home Department, has not been extended to the present petitioner. He would further submit that the respondent No.3 has already issued a communication on 28.09.2013 (Annexure P/3) for extending similar benefits to all the similarly placed employees, but necessary orders have not been passed with regard to the petitioner herein. 2. Learned State counsel submits that, in the event petitioner makes a fresh representation before the competent authority, his case shall be scrutinized and after due verification, if it is found that his case is similar, he shall be granted all such benefits available to the petitioner, in accordance with law. 3. After hearing counsel for the parties and considering the submission so advanced, this petition is disposed of with a direction that, in the event if the petitioner submits a fresh representation before the competent authority claiming similar issue, as has been extended to the previous 3 set of the petitioners, in whose favour order dated 03.12.2013 has been passed, within a period of four weeks from today, the competent authority shall scrutinize the case of the petitioner and if on verification, it is found that the petitioner is identically placed, necessary order in this regard be passed in accordance with law, within a further period of 45 days. 4. If any adverse order is passed against the petitioner, he would be at liberty to approach this Court by way of fresh petition for redressal of his grievance. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved