1 2025:CGHC:31601 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7887 of 2018 1 - Om Prakash Verma S/o B. P. Verma Aged About 41 Years Forest Research Institute, Koni, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Forest Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest, Aranya Bhawan, Sector - 19, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Additional Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest, Aranya Bhawan, Sector -19, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kanchan Kalwani, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 09/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 10.I This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to amend the pay scale of Wireless Operator as per circular dated 15.10.2001 and the pay scale of the petitioner be fixed as Rs.5000-150-8000/-. 10.II Any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given. Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.07.14 15:08:17 +0530 2 2. Ms. Sharmila Singhai, learned Senior Advocate would argue that initially, the petitioner was engaged as a daily rated employee in the Forest Department in the year 1987 and his services were regularized in the year 2008 on the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590/-. She would contend that WPS No. 1222/2015 was filed claiming therein pay parity and it was dismissed vide order dated 09.07.2015. She would further submit that liberty was granted to the petitioner to make a representation before the respondent authorities and the authorities were directed to consider the claim of the petitioner at the time of revision of pay. She would further contend that the pay scales of government servants were revised according to the Revision of Pay Rules in the State of Chhattisgarh in the year 2016, but the pay scale of the Wireless Operator, the post on which the petitioner is working, has not been revised for the reasons best known to the respondents. She would also submit that the Forest Department has stated that they have no objection if the Finance Department revises the pay scale of Wireless Operators, but the Finance Department has refused to entertain such recommendation. She would further argue that the action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. It is also argued that the pay scales of other government servants have been revised in the year 2016 except for the post of Wireless Operator. She would pray that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner with regard to the revision of pay scale of Wireless Operator. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Vedant Shadangi, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents would oppose. He would submit that the claim of the petitioner was turned down in the earlier round of 3 litigation. He would contend that the services of the petitioner were regularized in the year 2008 on the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590/- and that pay scale was accepted by the petitioner without any demur. He would contend that after 10-12 years, the petitioner cannot be permitted to make a prayer for the revision of the pay scale. He would also submit that the post of Wireless Operator has been declared dying cadre, therefore, the pay scale of Wireless Operator has not been revised in the year 2016. He would submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties at length and perused the documents. 5. Admittedly, the services of the petitioner were regularized in the year 2008 on the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590/-. Earlier, a petition was filed by the petitioner claiming therein pay parity, but it was dismissed, however, liberty was granted to the petitioner to make a representation and the authorities were directed to consider the claim of the petitioner at the time of revision of pay. In the year 2016, the State Government took a decision to revise the pay scales of government servants, but no benefit was extended to the petitioner and other similarly employed Wireless Operators, thus, the decision taken by the respondent authorities was illegal, arbitrary, malafide, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The employees who are working on the post of Wireless Operators are being exploited by the State instrumentality. Though the post of Wireless Operator has been declared of dying cadre but it does not give any authority of law to the State to not revise their pay scale, when the benefit of revision of pay scale has been extended to the other government servants, 4 therefore, the decision taken by the respondent authorities, whereby the representation of the petitioner has been rejected, is hereby quashed. 6. The respondent authorities are directed to extend the benefit of the revision of the pay scale to the petitioner from the year 2016 when the pay scales of government servants were revised. The petitioner shall be entitled to arrears of salary from the said date till the date of its realization. 7. Consequently, the petition is allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti