1 2025:CGHC:50636 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2530 of 2023 Order Reserved on 18.09.2025 Order Delivered on 10.10.2025 Yogesh Kumar Dewangan S/o Shri Mohan Lal Dewangan, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Ward No. 47, Near P H Q Durg, Quarter No. H-2/6, Police Station Kotwali, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Secretary General Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 – Director, Directorate of Public Instructions, Chhattisgarh, First Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - District Education Officer, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh --- Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Ajay Pandey, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge CAV Order 1. Heard Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ajay Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.10.10 18:54:54 +0530 2 for the State/respondents. 2. By filing the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):- “10.1 Call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the Petitioner from the possession of respondents for its kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set-aside the impugned order dated 21.02.2023 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondent no.3, which illegal & arbitrary. 10.3 That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents to grant the petitioner salary as per pay scale 5200-20200+2200 instead of 5200-20200+1900. This Hon'ble Court be further pleased to direct the respondents to grant the arrears of salary to the petitioner from the date of his appointment. 10.4 This Hon'ble Court be further pleased to pass such other order(s) or direction(s), as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit.” 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 21.02.2023, whereby his claim for grant of the amended pay scale of ₹5200–20200 with Grade Pay ₹2200, applicable to drivers of Heavy Motor Vehicles, has been rejected. The rejection was made on the ground that, since the petitioner is not driving any Heavy Motor Vehicle, as none is available in the office, he cannot be granted the benefit of the amended pay scale fixed for drivers of Heavy Motor Vehicles. 3 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that an advertisement dated 23.12.2013 was issued by respondent No.4, the District Education Officer, Durg, inviting applications for various posts including that of Driver. The petitioner, being eligible, applied for the post and was appointed as a Driver vide order dated 01.05.2015 on a pay scale of ₹5200–20200 with Grade Pay ₹1900. As per the eligibility criteria, the candidates were required to possess a valid driving licence for both Heavy Motor Vehicles (for short, ‘HMV’) and Light Motor Vehicles (for short, ‘LMV’). The petitioner fulfilled this requirement, holding a valid HMV and LMV licence, and accordingly was selected and appointed. 5. During the course of the driving test, the petitioner successfully passed the same. Being in possession of an HMV licence, the petitioner claims that he should have been granted the pay scale applicable to HMV drivers as per circular dated 01.05.2013, under which, pursuant to the 6th Pay Commission, the pay scale for HMV drivers is ₹5200–20200 with Grade Pay ₹2200. However, the said benefit has not been extended to him despite repeated representations. His grievance not having been redressed, the petitioner earlier filed WPS No. 276/2023, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 13.01.2023, directing the respondent authorities to consider and decide his pending representation within eight weeks. The petitioner contends that since he possesses the requisite qualification of an HMV licence, he ought to have been granted the pay scale applicable to HMV 4 drivers. The denial of such benefit, according to him, is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner holds a valid and effective HMV licence, and therefore, he is entitled to the higher pay scale applicable to HMV drivers. He further submits that the mere fact that the department currently does not possess any HMV cannot be a ground to deprive him of the said benefit. It is for the department to utilize his services appropriately when required. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that although the essential qualification for the post of Driver included possession of both HMV and LMV licences, the petitioner was appointed as a general Driver, not specifically as an HMV Driver. Unless the department actually engages him in driving an HMV, he cannot claim the higher pay scale meant for HMV drivers. Since the department presently has no HMV in its fleet, there is no occasion to engage the petitioner as such. Therefore, the rejection of his claim vide order dated 21.02.2023 is proper and does not warrant interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and carefully perused the entire material available on record, including the pleadings and documents filed by both sides. 9. From a perusal of the advertisement dated 23.12.2013, it is evident that the post for which the petitioner had applied was 5 simply that of a “Driver,” and the essential eligibility criteria prescribed therein required the candidates to possess a valid driving licence to drive both HMV and LMV. The object behind such dual qualification was evidently to ensure that the selected candidate would be capable of operating both types of vehicles as and when required by the department. 10. It is an admitted position on record that, at present, the respondent department does not possess any Heavy Motor Vehicle in its fleet. Consequently, there is no occasion or requirement to engage the petitioner for driving such vehicles. The mere possession of an HMV licence by the petitioner, though a qualifying requirement at the time of appointment, does not by itself entitle him to the higher pay scale attached to the post of an HMV Driver, unless he is actually performing duties relating to that class of vehicle. The qualification ensures eligibility for appointment, but the entitlement to a particular pay scale is determined by the nature of work and responsibility actually discharged. 11. The contention of the petitioner that since he possesses a valid HMV licence, he is automatically entitled to the higher pay scale, cannot be accepted. The petitioner was appointed as a Driver on a general pay scale of ₹5200–20200 with Grade Pay ₹1900, and his duties have been confined to driving LMVs available with the department. It is a settled principle that pay and allowances must correspond to the duties actually performed and the post held, 6 rather than the qualifications possessed, unless there is a specific rule or policy to the contrary. 12. The respondent department, while deciding the petitioner’s representation pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in WPS No.276/2023, has categorically recorded that there is no Heavy Motor Vehicle in the establishment and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be treated as an HMV Driver for the purpose of extending the higher pay scale. This reasoning appears to be just and logical, as the benefit of an HMV Driver’s pay scale is intended for those who are engaged in driving such vehicles involving greater responsibility, skill, and risk. 13. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no illegality, irregularity, or infirmity in the impugned order dated 21.02.2023 passed by respondent No.3. The same is based on sound reasoning and does not warrant interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of any substance, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 14. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh