1 2025:CGHC:47270 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8638 of 2023 1 - Jailal Sao S/o Shri Nirmal Das Sao Aged About 64 Years Occupation Retired Assistant Internal Audit And Taxation Officer, Janpad Panchayat Basna, District Mahasamnd Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Panchayat And Rural Development Department Capital Complex Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director, Directorate Of Panchayat, Sector -19, North Block, Vikas, Bhawan, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Principal Accountant General (Audit), Zero Point, Baloda Bazar Road, Post Vidhan Sabha, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat Mahasamund District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 5 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Basna, P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For State : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 15.09.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs : “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ by directing the respondent authorities to release the increments of higher qualification and revised the pension after adding the benefit of increments as per the calculation made and submitted by CEO Janpad Panchayat Basna dated 09.12.2021 (Annexure P-1). 10.2 That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider and decide the representation filed by the petitioner in light of the circular and order passed by this court in the Identical cases 10.3 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be please to direct the respondents to pay the arrears of increments with interest 10.4 That any other /relief order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the heavy cast of the petition.” 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Gram Sahayak in the respondent department on 12.01.1987. At the time of his appointment, the 3 essential qualification prescribed for the position was matriculation, and he was placed on a pay scale of Rs. 485/- - Rs. 740/-. Over the years, the petitioner demonstrated sincere service and dedication, which led to his promotion in November, 2010 to the post of Assistant Internal Audit & Taxation Officer. Following this promotion, he was posted at Janpad Panchayat Basna, District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh), where he continued to serve until his retirement. During his service, the petitioner submitted his graduation marksheet, specifically a Bachelor of Arts degree from Ravishankar University, Raipur, on 13.07.2013. This qualification was additional and not mandatory for his original appointment as Gram Sahayak, and it was duly recorded in his service book. Since the petitioner possessed a higher qualification than the essential matriculation requirement, he was entitled to receive additional increments in his pay, as stipulated by the circulars of State Government as well as legal precedents set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and by this Court. Despite this entitlement, when the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent department requesting the grant of these additional increments for his higher qualification, no action was taken on his request during his tenure of service. Subsequently, the petitioner retired on 31.05.2021, upon reaching the age of superannuation from the post of Assistant Internal Audit & Taxation Officer at Janpad Panchayat Basna. According to the Revision of Pay Rules, 1990, which came into effect for Panchayat and Social 4 Welfare Department employees from 28.11.1988, the pay scale for non-graduate employees was fixed at Rs. 1150/- - Rs. 1800/-, whereas employees holding graduation degrees were entitled to a higher pay scale of Rs. 1200/- - Rs. 2040/-. Given that the petitioner was appointed before the enactment of these rules and held a graduation degree, he claims entitlement to the higher pay scale prescribed for graduates. This entitlement was supported by an order dated 09.12.2021, issued by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Janpad Panchayat Basna, who correctly calculated and fixed the pay of petitioner in accordance with the 1990 Rules and forwarded the same for verification to the Divisional Joint Director, Accounts Audit & Pension Department, Raipur. However, this pay fixation order was rejected by the verifying authority despite the clear entitlement of petitioner under the Rules. Furthermore, the petitioner was denied two advance increments that are granted to employees possessing qualifications higher than the essential criteria, as per circulars issued by the General Administration Department. This denial has caused a significant financial loss to the petitioner, resulting in a lower pension compared to similarly qualified and positioned employees. The subsequent representation submitted by petitioner dated 26.08.2023, requesting the release of the increments for his higher qualification and rectification of his pension accordingly, remains pending with no action taken by the respondent authorities. 5 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the action of the respondent in refusing to sanction the two advanced increments to the petitioner, despite his possession of a higher qualification than the essential requirement, is wholly illegal and constitutes clear discrimination. Such conduct on the part of the respondent is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which guarantee equality before the law and equal opportunity in public employment. The denial of increments solely because the higher qualification possessed by petitioner was not considered undermines the principle of fairness and equality and unjustifiably treats the petitioner differently from other similarly situated employees who have been granted such benefits. It is submitted that the petitioner has held a Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) degree since 1980, a fact that is uncontested and duly recorded in his service records. Under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Revision of Pay Rules, 1990, which came into effect from 28.11.1988, employees holding a graduate degree are entitled to a higher pay scale compared to those without such qualifications. Specifically, the pay scale for non-graduate employees was fixed at Rs. 1150/- - Rs. 1800/-, while for graduates it was Rs. 1200/- - Rs. 2040/-. Since the petitioner was appointed in the department on 12.01.1987, prior to the enactment of these Rules, and held the higher qualification at the relevant time, he is squarely entitled to be placed on the higher pay scale applicable to graduates. The failure of the respondents to provide this higher pay scale to the 6 petitioner is therefore without any lawful basis and contrary to the rules in force. Further, it is contended that once an employee has passed a higher qualification and has submitted the requisite documents, which then form part of his official service record, he becomes entitled to receive two advanced increments from the date of passing the examination. The petitioner complied with this requirement by submitting his graduation mark-sheet, yet the respondents have arbitrarily denied him these increments. This denial is an act of clear discrimination and is in breach of the relevant circular dated November 18, 1992, issued by the General Administration Department, which mandates the grant of two advanced increments to employees holding higher qualifications than the essential qualifications prescribed for their posts. 4. The learned counsel for petitioner emphasizes that the entitlement of petitioner to the higher pay scale and additional increments is not only grounded in statutory rules but also supported by the administrative actions taken by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Janpad Panchayat Basna. The CEO, recognizing the rights of petitioner under the Pay Rules, 1990, rightly fixed the pay of petitioner accordingly on 09.12.2021, and forwarded the matter to the Divisional Joint Director, Accounts and Pension Department, Raipur, for verification. However, despite the correct calculation and lawful entitlement, the verification authority unjustifiably rejected the pay fixation order without providing any valid reasons. This arbitrary rejection has resulted in a significant financial loss to 7 the petitioner and adversely impacted his pension, which remains lower than that of similarly placed employees. Moreover, the repeated efforts of petitioner to seek redressal have been met with inaction. A fresh representation was filed on 26.08.2023, requesting the authorities to consider the claim for release of increments related to the higher qualification and to revise his pension accordingly, in line with the calculation submitted by the CEO. Regrettably, this representation remains pending, with no decision or response from the respondent authorities to date, further compounding the injustice faced by the petitioner. However, at this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks limited relief that a direction may be issued to the respondents to decide the representation submitted by petitioner within some stipulated timeframe. 5. Learned State counsel as also learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 jointly submit that the petitioner has filed the instant petition aggrieved by the alleged inaction on the part of respondents No. 1 to 3 in relation to payment of increments of higher qualifications instead of essential qualifications, as well as non-revision of pension by including increments attributable to additional qualifications after retirement. It is submitted that the Pay Fixation for the petitioner was carried out by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Basna and subsequently forwarded to the Divisional Joint Director, Treasury Accounts and Pension, Raipur for necessary action. The said pay fixation was, however, rejected 8 by the Divisional Joint Director, Treasury Accounts and Pension, Raipur. The petitioner has named respondent No. 3 as one of the parties in the petition. The pay fixation case of petitioner was never sent to the office of Respondent No. 3 for any verification or approval. However, at this stage, the petitioner is seeking limited relief of directing the respondents to decide his pending representation, the respondents have no objection to this limited relief being granted. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents enclosed along with the petition. 7. In view of the facts and submissions placed on record, this Court directs Respondent No. 2 to consider and decide the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 26.08.2023, or in case the petitioner desires to file a fresh representation along with all requisite documents, he shall be at liberty to do so relating to the grant of additional increments for higher qualifications and the consequent pay fixation, after due verification of all relevant documents including the graduation certificate of petitioner and the pay fixation order dated 09.12.2021 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Basna. 8. The respondents shall pass a reasoned and speaking order, strictly in accordance with the applicable rules, circulars, and judicial precedents, and communicate the same to the petitioner 9 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 9. It is clarified that this Court is not expressing any opinion on merits of the claims of petitioner. The respondents are therefore directed to consider and decide the representation strictly in accordance with law on its own merits. 10. With this observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shayna