1 2025:CGHC:20425 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2821 of 2016 1. Narottam Sahu S/o Shri P. R. Sahu, Aged About 42 Years Assistant Grade- I Section- Criminal Section, High Court Of Chhattisgarh Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2. Smt. Mini Rajan, W/o Shri N. P. Rajan, Aged About 44 Years Assistant Grade- I, Section- Criminal Section, High Court Of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3. Vinod Kumar Ukey, S/o Late Ramesh Kumar Ukey, Aged About 37 Years Assistant Grade- I, Section- Cause List Section, High Court Of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4. Ajay Singh Thakur, S/o Shri Birbal Singh, Aged About 39 Years Assistant Grade- I, Section- Protocol Section, High Court Of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 5. Jai Prakash Shukla, S/o Shri J. P. Shukla, Aged About 37 Years Assistant Grade- I, Section- Civil Section, High Court Of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 6. Anil Kumar Gupta, S/o Late Dukhiram Gupta, Aged About 46 Years Assistant Grade- I, Section- Civil Section, High Court Of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 7. Lavlesh Kumar Chandravanshi, S/o Shri Gajanand Prasad, Aged About 42 Years Assistant Grade- I, Section- Writ Section, High Court Of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 8. Gyanprakash Giri Goswami, S/o Late Home Giri Goswami, Aged About 45 Years Assistant Grade- I, Section- Works Section, High Court Of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 9. Jot Kumar Sinha, S/o Shri K. R. Sinha, Aged About 47 Years Assistant Grade- I, Section- Civil Section, High Court Of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 10. Virat Kumar, S/o Shri Phoolchand Thakur, Aged About 41 Years Assistant Grade- I, Section- Cause List Section, High Court Of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 11. Kishore Kumar Kashyap, S/o Late Shri R. N. Kashyap, Aged About 43 Years Assistant Grade- I, Section- Central Filing, High Court Of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 12. Farhan Ahmed Khan, S/o Late Abdul Latif Khan, Aged About 41 Years Assistant Grade- I, Section- Central Filing, High Court Of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 13. Smt. Dev Prabha Sinha, W/o Shri Praveen Kumar Sinha, Aged About 36 Years Assistant Grade- I, Section- Writ Section, High Court Of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 14. Yugal Kishore Nirmalkar, S/o Late Makhan Lal Nirmalkar, Aged About 44 Years Assistant Grade- I, Section- Checker Section, High Court Of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 15. Pushottam Chand Verma, S/o Shri L. C. Verma, Aged About 44 Years Assistant Grade- I, Section- Accounts Section, High Court Of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 16. Smt. Sangeeta Nagwani, W/o Bnarat Kumar Nagwani, Aged About 40 Years Assistant Grade- I, Section- Reader, High Court Of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 17. Raj Kumar Chandra, S/o Shri Piki Lal Chandra, Aged About 49 Years Assistant Grade- I, Section- Civil Section, High Court Of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 18. Subhash Dhruv, S/o Shri Shanker Lal Dhruv, Aged About 40 Years Assistant Grade- I, Section- Writ Section, High Court Of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioners versus 3 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Law, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh. 2. High Court Of Chhattisgarh, Through Registrar General, High Court Of Chhattisgarh, Bodri, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3. Additional Registrar Establishment, High Court Of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4. Mohan Lal Yadav, Assistant Grade- I, High Court Of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 5. Vishalrao Khushalrao Atulkar, Assistant Grade- I, High Court Of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 6. Ashit Kumar, Assistant Grade- I, High Court Of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Somkant Verma and Mr. Shashank Tiwari, Advocates. For State : Mr. Kapesh Ruparel, Panel Lawyer. For respondents No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Mr. Anurag Singh, Mr. Arpan Verma, Advocates. (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas) Order on Board 05/05/2025 1. The petitioners who are employees of the High Court have filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the alleged anomaly between the pay fixation of petitioners and private respondents. 2. The brief facts reflected from the record are that: (a) Initially the petitioners were appointed in the establishment of 4 High Court of Chhattisgarh as Assistant Grade-III and thereafter they have been promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-II and thereafter vide order dated 4-2-2023 they have been promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-I by the High Court in the pay band of Rs.9300- 34800+4300 whereas the respondents No. 4 to 6 who are juniors in service the petitioners and have been promoted as Assistant Grade-I alongwith the petitioner on 27-1-2015, but they have been given higher pay scale than the petitioners. It has been further contended that the petitioners are entitled to get the benefits of stepping up of pay in view of Note-7, Rule 7 of Chhattisgarh Pay Revision Rules, 2009. The anomaly has been created in the pay fixation of the petitioners, as such, it has been prayed by the petitioners that they are also entitled to get equal pay at par with respondents No. 4 to 6 from the date of revision of pay of respondents No. 4 to 6 on 25-7-2015 with arrears. The representation submitted by the petitioners have been rejected on 8- 1-2016 by the High Court. Being aggrieved with this order, the petitioners have filed this writ petition. 3. The High Court has filed its return mainly contending that the respondents No. 4 to 6 have been granted 2 promotions were as the petitioners have been granted only 1 promotion and their right of promotion on the post of Assistant Grade-I is altogether is different. The petitioners were promoted on the post of Assistant Grade-I from the post of Assistant Grade-II whereas the respondents No. 4 to 6 were promoted on the post of Stamp Reporter vide order dated 04- 2-2013 in the pay band of Rs. 9300-34800 + Grade Pay 4200/- and from the post of Stamp Reported they have been promoted to the 5 post of Assistant Grade-I by order dated 27-1-2015 and they are getting higher salary whereas the petitioners were promoted from the post of Assistant Grade-II and were getting less salary. It has been further contended that the case of the petitioners is not covered under Note-7, Rule 7 of Chhattisgarh Pay Revision Rules, 2009, as such, they are not entitled to get stepping up of their pay or grant of additional increment. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the respondent authorities failed to consider that the petitioners as well as respondents No.4 to 6 were earlier working against the post of Assistant Grade-II and subsequently have been promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-I and are working in the same cadre and entire service conditions and the nature of work being same they are only being discriminated with respect to their pay where the juniors are being paid salary more than that of the petitioners. He would further submit that the petitioners are also entitled to get one additional increment and the same benefit may also be granted to the petitioners and they should be granted salary at par with the respondents No. 4 to 6. It has also been contended that the action taken by the respondent authorities in not giving the same benefit to the petitioners is against service jurisprudence that the persons who are seniors should be granted higher pay. Thus, he would pray for allowing this writ petition. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for High Court opposing the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that before appointing on the post of Assistant Grade-I, 6 respondents No. 4 to 6 have worked as Stamp Reporter, therefore, their pay scale is different. He would further submit that the Respondents 4, 5, and 6 were promoted to the position of Stamp Reporter from the position of Assistant Grade-II by Registry orders 06 and 07, dated 4-2-2013, respectively, while the petitioners were promoted to the position of Assistant Grade-I from the position of Assistant Grade-II after January 1, 2006. The respondents No. 4, 5 & 6 were once again promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-I in the pay band of Rs. 9300-34800+ 4300/- G.P. Consequently, it is evident that respondent numbers 4, 5, and 6 received two promotions after January 1, 2006, one in the pay band of Rs. 9300- 34800+ 4200/- G.P. and the other in the pay band of Rs. 9300- 34800 + 4300/ G.P. The petitioners received only one promotion in the pay band of Rs. 9300-34800+ 4300/- G.P. Consequently, their pay was set in accordance with the rules based on their promotion and their pay fixation option. Additionally, there are differences in the pay band between the post of Assistant Grade-II and Stamp Reporter. Since Respondents Nos. 4, 5, and 6 were promoted after January 1, 2006, the provision of Note-7, Rule-7 of the Pay Revision Rules, 2009 does not apply in the case of the Petitioners. This rule applies when a senior government employee is promoted to a higher position prior to January 1, 2006. The order dated 18-3-2016 is in accordance with law. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that there is no discrimination. The Petitioners are not entitled for stepping-up of their pay, therefore the matter has not been considered for referring to the State Government as there is no anomaly in the pay fixation of the petitioners. As such, he would 7 pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the State has adopted the submission made by learned counsel for respondents No. 4 to 6. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. It is not in dispute that the respondents No. 4 to 6 before appointing on the post of Assistant Grade-I, they were promoted as Stamp Reporter. As such, they will get different pay scale, therefore, their salary has rightly been fixed by the High Court granting higher pay scale to them. Though the petitioners and respondent No. 4 to 6 are in the same cadre of Assistant Grade-I, since their source of appointment is different, as such, they will be entitled for different pay scale according to the rules governing the field. Considering all the material on record and since no other Rule has been placed on record by the petitioners to demonstrate that they have been discriminated by the High Court or any Rules has been violated, I am of the view that this is not a fit case where this Court should exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in interfering in the impugned order or in the fixation of pay of petitioners and respondents No. 4 to 6. 9. Accordingly, the instant writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) JUDGE Raju RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Date: 2025.06.09 11:35:50 +0530