1 2025:CGHC:47380-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 676 of 2025 Domar Singh Baghel S/o Shri G. L. Baghel Aged About 57 Years Present R/o E- 1/6, Sector 17, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Law And Legislative Affairs, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of General Administration, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 3 - High Court of Chhattisgarh Through Registrar General, Bilaspur Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - State of Madhya Pradesh Through Its Secretary, Vallabh Bhawan, Mantralaya, Bhopal (M.P.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Ms. Ruchi Nagar, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2/State : Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 16.09.2025 1. Heard Ms. Ruchi Nagar, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents No.1 and 2 as well ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.09.16 17:32:01 +0530 2 as Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 on I.A. No.01, which is an application for condonation of delay of 115 days in preferring the appeal. 2. For the grounds assigned in the application (I.A. No.01), the same is allowed. Delay of 115 days in filing the writ appeal is hereby condoned. 3. By way of this writ appeal, appellant has prayed for following relief(s):- “i. That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside/quash judgment and order dated 04.03.2025 in WPS No. 4981 of 2011delivered by the learned Single Judge. ii. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly quash the impugned order dated 11.05.2011 (Annexure P/1), and kindly direct the respondent no.3 to count the past services of the petitioner i.e., from date of initial appointment for fixation of the pay scale as per the circular dated 19.07.1973, and thereby re-fix the pay scale and annual increments of the appellant. iii. Any other relief(s), direction(s), which Hon'ble the Court deems fit, and proper, in the circumstances of the case.” 3 4. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 04.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.4981/2011 (Domar Singh Baghel v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge has been dismissed, thereby upholding the action/decision of the respondents which was under challenge before the learned Single Judge. 5. Brief facts of the case projected before the learned Single Judge were that The appellant/writ petitioner was initially appointed as a Stenographer in the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur on 31.10.1998 in the pay scale of ₹4500-125-7000, and was later posted at the Tribunal Bench, Raipur. Upon reorganization of the State of Madhya Pradesh and creation of the State of Chhattisgarh, the State of Madhya Pradesh, by policy decision dated 17.04.2003, abolished the Administrative Tribunal and declared all its employees as surplus. Thereafter, by order dated 02.05.2003, the General Administration Department of Madhya Pradesh allowed absorption of surplus employees in the State Government. Subsequently, the appellant/writ petitioner’s services were absorbed in the High Court of Chhattisgarh on 24.07.2007, where his pay was fixed in the pay scale of ₹5500- 175-9000 on the post of AG-I/Stenographer with one annual increment of ₹175/-, thereby fixing his basic pay at ₹5675/-. The appellant/writ petitioner, along with other similarly situated employees, submitted representations for re-fixation of pay, 4 seeking fixation in the pay scale of ₹5500-9000/-. However, the representation was rejected on 11.05.2011 (Annexure P/1). 6. Feeling aggrieved with the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities, the petitioner has filed a writ petition bearing Writ Petition (S) No.4981/2011, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 04.03.2025. 7. Challenging the aforesaid order dated 04.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition being Writ Petition (S) No.4981/2011, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/writ petitioner. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submitted that the respondent has arbitrarily, wrongly and discriminatorily rejected the claim of the appellant. It was urged that the learned Single Bench failed to consider the facts and circumstances of the case in their true sense and spirit. It is further submitted that it is an admitted fact that the appellant/writ petitioner was originally appointed as a Stenographer in the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by order dated 31.10.1998 (Annexure P/2) in the pay scale of ₹4500-125-7000 and was posted at the Tribunal Bench, Raipur. The learned Single Bench failed to appreciate that the Circular dated 19.07.1973 specifically provides for grant of notional benefit of salary drawn earlier for fixation of pay in the department in which the employee is absorbed. Therefore, while fixing the pay of the appellant/writ petitioner at 5 the time of absorption in the High Court, his past services ought to have been taken into account for notional benefits. It was also contended that the appellant/writ petitioner was drawing salary in the pay scale of ₹4500-125-7000 and, at the time of absorption, his basic pay had already reached ₹5500/-. Hence, his past services should have been counted towards annual increments from the basic pay of ₹5500/- onwards, thereby entitling him to four increments in the pay scale of ₹5500/- itself. The learned Single Bench, however, failed to consider and appreciate the Circular dated 19.07.1973 (Annexure P/9), which specifically provides for calculation of length of service and salary for employees absorbed in other departments. On this ground alone, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. Learned counsel further submitted that the Circular dated 19.07.1973 was issued by the State Government after due consideration of departmental reorganization and on recommendations received in that regard. The said circular is in consonance with Rule 22(A) of the Fundamental Rules, and therefore the impugned judgment of the learned Single Bench cannot be sustained in light of the same. It is also urged that the rejection of the appellant/writ petitioner’s representation (Annexure P/1) was done without application of mind, through a non-speaking order which failed to deal with the specific facts and circumstances set out in the representation. Thus, the order is liable to be quashed. In conclusion, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner submitted that the 6 impugned judgment is contrary to law, arbitrary, and unsustainable, and therefore deserves to be set aside by this Court. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents No.1 and 2 as well as respondent No.3 opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant/writ petitioner and supported the impugned order as well as the judgment of the learned Single Bench. It was contended that the claim of the appellant/writ petitioner is wholly misconceived and without any legal basis. It is submitted that upon abolition of the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in 2003, the employees working therein, including the appellant/writ petitioner, were declared surplus and were thereafter absorbed in the State Government service. The services of the appellant/writ petitioner were subsequently absorbed in the High Court of Chhattisgarh by order dated 24.07.2007. At the time of such absorption, his pay was rightly fixed in the pay scale of ₹5500-175-9000 on the post of AG-I/Stenographer with one annual increment, and his basic pay was accordingly fixed at ₹5675/-. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the benefit claimed by the appellant/writ petitioner on the strength of Circular dated 19.07.1973 is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The said circular pertains to fixation of pay in certain specific circumstances of absorption, but the appellant/writ petitioner’s case does not fall within its ambit. Moreover, the appellant/writ 7 petitioner was already granted the benefit of one increment at the time of absorption, and his pay was fixed strictly in accordance with the applicable rules and instructions. It was also urged that the representation filed by the appellant/writ petitioner was duly considered by the competent authority, and the order dated 11.05.2011 rejecting the claim cannot be said to be arbitrary or without application of mind. The representation lacked substantive grounds and was therefore rightly rejected. Learned counsel argued that the learned Single Bench had considered the facts and applicable law in their correct perspective and rightly dismissed the writ petition. It was emphasized that the appellant/writ petitioner cannot seek multiple increments or re- fixation of pay beyond what is permissible under the relevant rules, and any such direction would lead to an undue financial burden on the State exchequer. Accordingly, it was submitted that the impugned judgment suffers from no infirmity and the appeal is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. 10. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and carefully considered their rival submissions. We have also perused the record of the case, including the impugned order dated 04.03.2025 passed in Writ Petition (S) No.4981/2011. The submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner and those of the learned counsel for the State/respondents No.1 and 2 as well as respondent No.3 have received our thoughtful consideration. 8 11. The core issue that arises for adjudication in this appeal is with regard to the correctness of the rejection of the appellant/writ petitioner’s claim for re-fixation of pay and whether the learned Single Bench has erred in dismissing the writ petition without appreciating the applicability of the relevant circulars, rules, and factual matrix of the case. 12. After appreciating the submissions of learned counsel for the parties therein as also the materials on record, the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order in following terms:- “8. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the pay should be initially fixed in the pay scale of 5500/- thereafter, whatever the increment he has received while working with the Tribunal should be added. This submission cannot be considered as the pay scale of the post holding by the petitioner in the State Administration Tribunal was 4500-125-7000/- whereas the pay scale of High Court for the post of AG-I/Stenographer is 5500-175- 9000/-, accordingly, his basic salary was fixed at Rs.5500/- which is initial pay scale of AG-I/Stenographer working in the High Court and one increment has already been added 9 as per Rule 22(A) of the Fundamental Rules applicable to the Government servant on fixation of pay. Thus, there is no illegality on the part of the respondent in fixing the pay and rejecting the representation of petitioner. 9. The writ petition sans merit, deserves to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed.” 13. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as after due consideration of the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the appellant/writ petitioner was not entitled to any further benefit in the matter of pay fixation. The record clearly reveals that upon absorption in the High Court, the appellant/writ petitioner was placed in the appropriate pay scale of ₹5500-175-9000 prescribed for the post of AG-I/Stenographer, and one increment was also granted to him in terms of Rule 22(A) of the Fundamental Rules. 14. The contention raised by the appellant/writ petitioner that his past services should be counted for grant of additional increments, on the strength of the Circular dated 19.07.1973, is misconceived and without any basis, as the said circular does not apply to the facts of the present case. 15. We also find substance in the stand taken by the respondents that 10 the fixation of pay was made strictly in accordance with the prevailing rules and instructions, and no arbitrariness or illegality can be attributed to the action of the authorities. The rejection of the representation dated 11.05.2011 cannot be termed as arbitrary or without application of mind, particularly when the appellant/writ petitioner had already been granted all permissible benefits at the time of his absorption. 16. Having considered the matter in its entirety, we are satisfied that the learned Single Judge, by the impugned order dated 04.03.2025 passed in Writ Petition (S) No.4981/2011, has dealt with all aspects of the case and has recorded a well-reasoned finding which calls for no interference by this Court in intra-court appellate jurisdiction. 17. Consequently, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu