1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4853 of 2017 Kishan Kumar Dhurve S/o Shri Bhanuram Dhurve, Aged About 45 Years Shiksha Karmi Grade 3, R/o Village Shyampur, P. O. Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Chhuikhandan, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 3 - Zila Panchayat, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Block Education Officer, Chhuikhandan, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. , District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ritesh Verma, Advocate For State : Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, Panel Lawyer, For Respondents No.2 & 3 : Ms. Chetana Sharma, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Rajnish Singh Baghel, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 03/09/2025 2 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1. that, the respondents may kindly be directed to submit the entire records as regards the petitioner's case. 10:2. that, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ for quashing the step or act of the respondents in paying less salary that earlier. The arrears of less payment may kindly be directed to the respondents to pay immediately. The letter ann. P/5, 6 and 7 may kindly be quashed. 10:3. that, the Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to pass any order or issue any suitable writ or direction as may deem fit under the circumstances of the case including cost of the petition.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the Madhya Pradesh Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Service Conditions) Rules, 1998, the minimum qualification for Shiksha Karmi Grade-III was Higher Secondary pass, without requirement of B.Ed./D.Ed. The petitioner, duly qualified, was appointed in 1998 on the post of Shiksha Karmi and his services were regularized in the year 2002 after completion of probation. He was paid regular salary til April 2017, thereafter it was arbitrarily reduced on the basis of a departmental guideline dated 08- 03-2017 requiring B.Ed/D.Ed. It is contended that such guideline cannot be given retrospective effect against the petitioner, whose services were already regularized. The reduction of salary without notice is illegal and violative of service jurispudence. Reliance is placed in the matter of Jayant Kumar Patle & others v. State of Chhattisgarh (WPS No. 4271/2017, decided on 03-11-2017), wherein a similar action was quashed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that though the petitioner was regularized, he was required to acquire the prescribed qualification (D.Ed./B.Ed.) within the time granted. Since the petitioner failed to acquire such qualification, the order granting him 3 higher pay and annual increments were rightly withdrawn by order dated 08-03-2017. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on file. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed under the Rules of 1998 and was regularized in the year 2002. At the time of his appointment, the qualification of D.Ed./B.Ed. was not prescribed in the Rules. The respondents, without affording opportunity of hearing, curtailed the salary of the petitioner with retrospective effect, on the basis of subsequent circulars/guidelines. 9. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in Jayant Kumar Patle (supra), while dealing with an identical issue, has held in paragraphs 43 to 46 held as under:- “43. It is well settled principle of interpretation that the statute has to be read as it is and Court should not add or subtract or read any words into the statute which is not provided, therefore, if the legislature has consciously used the word 'increment' in the proviso to Rule 8 of the 2007 Niyam as well as the 2012 Niyam, this Court is not entitled to read the word increment as pay scale so as to put the petitioners in a more disadvantageous position than the one contemplated by the legislature. Court is not entitled to snatch away the benefit admissible to an employee under the Rules by process of interpretation by doing violence rt of chhattisgarh the legislature. 44. Now I shall consider the alternative submission made by the learned Dy. Advocate General that in view of language employed under the proviso to Rule 8 that upon non achieving the required qualification a candidate is not entitled to get any increment, therefore, denial of increment flows from the Rules, and is not illegal. 45.While the language says so, it is to be considered that most of the petitioners have been allowed the benefit of increment which has now been taken away without giving any opportunity of hearing, therefore, this aspect of the 4 matter has to be considered afresh by the State Government after providing opportunity of hearing to the concerned petitioners. 46. In the result, all the writ petitions are disposed of in the following terms: 1) Such Teachers (Panchayat) cadre who were already granted the benefit of time scale pay/revised pay scale and annual increment in terms of the circular dated 17-5- 2013 are held entitled to the pay scale/revised pay scale. Accordingly, the action of bringing them lower in the pay scale is quashed. 2) The issue about the petitioners' entitlement to get increment shall be considered afresh by the State Government within a period of 3 months from today. Before taking decision in the matter, the State Government shall hear the petitioners or some of them in the representative capacity. It is made clear that till the issue concerning entitlement of increment is decided, such petitioners who were already enjoying the benefit of increment, shall continue to get the same, which shall remain subject to the decision taken by the State Government in this regard. 3.Such petitioners who have completed 8 years of service and have already been confirmed/ regularized are held entitled to time pay scale/ revised pay scale, however, their entitlement to get increment shall automatically be considered when the State Government takes a decision in respect of such candidates who were already granted the benefit of increment. In the event the State Government decides to grant increment to the candidates, who were already paid the increment, this batch of petitioners will also be entitled for increment without requiring them to move afresh before this Court. 4.Such petitioners who were appointed under the 1997 Niyam when there was no condition of having B.Ed./D.Ed. Qualification are held entitled to the revised pay scale/time pay scale as well as increment and the impugned action withdrawing the said benefits from such petitioners is quashed. They shall continue to get all the benefits, which they were enjoying just before issuance of the impugned communications.” 5 10. In view of the law laid down in the matter of Jayant Kumar Patle (supra), the impugned orders dated 08-03-2017 (Annexure P/5), 28-03- 2017 (Annexure P/6) and 20-04-2017 (Annexure P/7), are hereby quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in terms of the judgment/order passed in the matter of Jayant Kumar Patle (supra). Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim