1 2025:CGHC:20562 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5168 of 2017 • Man Singh Chouhan S/o Late Shri Abheram Chouhan, Aged About 66 Years R/o Purani Basti, Dhimrapur, Near Kirodimal Chowk, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1. Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limited (A Government Of Chhattisgarh Undertaking) Through Its Managing Director, Danganiya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, (A Government Of Chhattisgarh Undertaking), Through Its Managing Director, Danganiya, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. The Executive Director (Bilaspur Circle), Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., 4. The Additional Engineer In Chief, Office Of The Executive Director (Bilaspur Circle), Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5. The Superintending Engineer (O And M), Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 6. The Executive Engineer (O And M) Division 1, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 05/05/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to this case from possession of the respondents for it’s kind perusal. Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI 2 10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ, direction or order commanding the respondents to grant the petitioner the benefit of second higher pay scale (which should have been given to the petitioner on completion of 18 years of service) as well as the benefit of third higher pay scale (which should have been given to the petitioner on completion of 25 years of service). 10.3 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue suitable writ, order or direction commanding the respondent authorities to pay the petitioner arrears/dues arising in favour of the petitioner due to grant of second and third higher pay scale with interest and 10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner society.” 2. Mr. Ajeet Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Security Guard under the respondents and he retired from services in the year 2011. He would contend that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1980 and thus, he worked for more than 30 years and was entitled to receive a higher pay scale after the completion of 09 years,18 years and 27 years of service. He would also submit that the first benefit in this regard was extended to the petitioner in the year 1991. He would further submit that the second and third benefits of the higher pay scale were not provided till 2011. He would pray for a direction to the respondent authorities to extend such a benefit. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that in the year 2007, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and a penalty of censure was inflicted in the year 2009 and immediately thereafter, the petitioner became eligible to get the benefit of a higher pay scale. He would contend that if the petitioner makes a representation before the 3 respondent authorities, an appropriate decision shall be taken by the concerned authorities. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. Taking into consideration the submissions made by Mr. Ajeet Kumar Yadav and Mr. Jitendra Pali Advocates, this petition, at this juncture, is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to make a detailed representation before respondent No. 4 within a period of 30 days and in turn, the authority concerned is directed to decide the claim of the petitioner in an objective manner preferably within a period of 120 days. 6. With the aforesaid direction(s), the petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti