1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1761 of 2023 1 - Madkam Apaiya S/o Shri Madkam Papaiyya Aged About 61 Years Working As Vaccinator, At Veterinary Hospital Konta, District Sukma, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Veterinary Services, Atal Nagar, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director Veterinary Services, Directorate, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Joint Director Veterinary Services Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Joint Director Treasurer, Account And Pension Division Bastar, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 5 - The District Treasury Officer District Bastar Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jeet Ram Patel, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 21/08/2025 1. Grievance raised in this writ petition is that petitioner is not being paid annual increment since the date of his regular appointment on the post of Vaccinator i.e. from the year 1992. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that initially petitioner appointed as Vaccinator on daily wages and subsequently, vide order dated 06.05.1991, petitioner was regularized on the post of Vaccinator. After regularization, petitioner became entitled for grant of annual increment from the year 1992 as also for time- bound pay scale from the year 2002. However, benefit of annual increment is extended to petitioners w.e.f. 13.10.2006 whereas, benefit of time- bound pay scale in the year 2015. Petitioner submitted representation (Annexure P-5) before Respondents No. 2 & 3 for payment of arrears of annual increment and time- bound pay-scale from 1992 and 2002 respectively, but till date no decision has been taken on it. He submits that at this stage grievance of petitioner would be redressed if a direction is issued to Respondents No. 2 & 3 to consider and decide pending representation of petitioner expeditiously. 3 3. Learned State Counsel would submit that as petitioner is not pressing this writ petition on merit, therefore, he is not having any objection to limited prayer made on behalf of petitioner. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused documents filed along with writ petition. 5. Considering entire facts and circumstances of case and limited prayer made by counsel for petitioner, which is not opposed by State Counsel, this writ petition is disposed of directing Respondents No. 2 & 3 to consider and decide petitioner’s representation dated 04.02.2023 (Annexure P-5) in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 6. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat