1 2025:CGHC:55019-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 818 of 2025 Prahlad Prasad Lathia S/o Shri Kaushal Prasad Lathia Aged About 55 Years Presently Posted As Librarian At Government College Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. Appellant(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Under Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Commissioner Department Of Higher Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - University Grand Commission Through The Secretary Government Of India Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg New Delhi 110002. Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Dhani Ram Patel, Advocate For State : Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Addl. Advocate General For UGC : Mr. J.N. Nande, Advocate RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.11.13 15:33:37 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru, J 12/11/2025 1. The present Writ Appeal has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 31/07/2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No. 1088/2021, whereby the Writ Petition preferred by him came to be dismissed. 2. In this appeal, the appellant has sought the following prayer:- “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this appeal and setaside the order dated 31/07/2025 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No. 1088/2021 and consequently allowed the Writ Appeal of the appellant and direct the respondent authority to grant the benefit of Senior scale with effect from 06/08/2004 and financial benefvit of selection grade with effect from 06/08/2009, in the interest of justice” 3. (a) According to the appellant, the appellant was appointed as a Librarian at Government Rajeev Gandhi College, Lormi, on 06.08.1998, and has been discharging his duties diligently under the control of Respondent No.1. As per the University Grants Commission (UGC) guidelines and the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS), the appellant became eligible for grant of Senior Scale after completion of six years of regular service and for Selection Grade after completion of five years in the Senior Scale, having also completed the requisite UGC Orientation and Refresher Courses. 3 (b) It is the grievance of the appellant that despite fulfilling all prescribed eligibility conditions, the benefit of Senior Scale was extended to him belatedly with effect from 31.05.2009, and the benefit of Selection Grade was further granted from 31.05.2014, thereby depriving him of his legitimate claim for retrospective financial upgradation. (c) Being aggrieved by such denial, the appellant preferred Writ Petition (S) No. 1088/2021 before this Court, which came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 31.07.2025, holding that the appellant’s entitlement to Senior Scale and Selection Grade would commence only from 2009 and 2014, respectively, and consequently denying the retrospective benefit from 06.08.2004 and 06.08.2009. Hence, the present appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the action of the respondent authorities is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as other similarly placed Librarians in Government Colleges have been granted Senior Scale and Selection Grade from their due dates, while the appellant has been unjustly denied the same. It was urged that the learned Single Judge has misinterpreted the provisions of the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) dated 19.10.2006, since the requirement of Orientation and Refresher Courses is only qualifying in nature and does not postpone eligibility if completed within the permissible period prescribed by the UGC. The appellant relied on documentary evidence, including the Principal’s letter dated 25.09.2017, certifying that he had fulfilled all requisite qualifications and was entitled to Selection Grade from August 2009, which 4 was not properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. It was further contended that eligibility under the UGC scheme depends on completion of the prescribed service tenure, not on the course completion date, and that UGC/AICTE relaxations permitted post-facto completion of such courses up to 31.12.2018 without affecting eligibility. Similarly placed employees, such as Shri Hari Shankar Singh Raj and Shri Nanak Paraste, were granted benefits from their due dates, and denial of parity to the appellant amounts to discrimination. Reliance was placed on decisions of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in TALPRO v. State of Tamil Nadu, W.P. No. 5701 of 2023; Dr. M. Arul Dhanakar v. The Registrar, W.P. No. 18404 of 2022; and Dr. Y. Nancy Jane v. State of Tamil Nadu, W.P. No. 27779 of 2023, wherein it was held that completion of Orientation/Refresher Courses shall not be treated as mandatory up to 31.12.2018 and cannot delay benefits under CAS. On these grounds, it was prayed that the impugned order dated 31.07.2025 be set aside and the appellant be granted Senior Scale and Selection Grade from 06.08.2004 and 06.08.2009 respectively. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel and learned counsel for the University Grants Commission (UGC) supported the impugned order and submitted that the appellant was granted Senior Scale and Selection Grade strictly in accordance with the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) and relevant UGC guidelines. It was contended that eligibility under the CAS depends not only on completion of the prescribed service period but also on fulfillment of mandatory conditions such as Orientation and Refresher Courses, which the appellant completed only at a later stage. Hence, the benefit could not be granted from an earlier date. They further submitted that the UGC’s 5 clarification allowing post-facto completion up to 31.12.2018 was intended to operate prospectively, and cannot be invoked to reopen cases already settled under previous rules. The benefits granted to the appellant from 31.05.2009 and 31.05.2014 correspond to his actual fulfillment of eligibility conditions. It was also urged that the judgments relied upon by the appellant pertain to different factual circumstances and cannot be applied uniformly. The respondents have acted in conformity with UGC Regulations and Government policy, and no arbitrariness or illegality can be attributed to their action. Hence, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. The undisputed facts reveal that the appellant was appointed as Librarian on 06.08.1998 and was extended the benefit of Senior Scale with effect from 31.05.2009 and Selection Grade with effect from 31.05.2014. The appellant’s grievance is that such benefits ought to have been granted retrospectively from 06.08.2004 and 06.08.2009, respectively, on account of his completion of the requisite length of service and subsequent completion of the prescribed Orientation and Refresher Courses. 8. The contention of the appellant that completion of Orientation and Refresher Courses is merely qualifying in nature and should not postpone eligibility deserves consideration; however, the relaxations introduced by the UGC permitting post-facto completion of such courses up to 31.12.2018 were issued much later and were intended to operate prospectively. The same cannot be invoked to reopen or modify benefits already granted under the Career 6 Advancement Scheme in accordance with the rules prevailing at the relevant time. 9. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that placement under the Career Advancement Scheme becomes effective only upon fulfillment of all the prescribed conditions, including successful completion of the requisite courses. Since the appellant completed the Orientation and Refresher Courses only in 2007 and 2009, the authorities were justified in granting Senior Scale and Selection Grade benefits from 31.05.2009 and 31.05.2014, respectively. The action of the respondents is consistent with the applicable UGC Regulations and Government instructions, and no arbitrariness or discrimination has been shown. 10. As regards the reliance placed on the judgments of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in TALPRO v. State of Tamil Nadu and connected cases, those decisions were rendered in the context of distinct State Government policies and the adoption of subsequent UGC guidelines by the Government of Tamil Nadu. The present matter, however, arises under the administrative framework of the State of Chhattisgarh, where no such adoption or corresponding policy has been notified. Hence, the said precedents are distinguishable on facts and inapplicable to the present case. 11. In view of the above discussion, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge warranting interference in appeal. The writ appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Rahul/Bhilwar