1 2025:CGHC:55777 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1396 of 2019 1 - Mirza Mubeen Baig S/o Late Shri Mirza Kareem Baig Aged About 64 Years Occupation Retired Inspector (M) R/o Ward No. 03, Gaus Nagar, P.S. Kotwali District Balaghat Madhya Pradesh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through its Secretary, Department of Home And Police Affairs, Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, P.S. And Post Rakhi, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Civil Line, P.S. Civil Line, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Badruddin Khan, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Santosh Soni, GA PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2025.11.17 14:54:49 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 17/11/2025 1. This is the second round of litigation. In the earlier Writ Petition i.e. WP(S) No.1646/2025, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 03.08.2015, with a direction to scrutinize the case of the petitioner in terms of the orders dated 03.07.2015 and 16.07.2015 passed in WP(S) No.4523/2014 (Francis Xavier Beck and others vs. State of chhattisgarh and other and other connected matters) and WP(S) No.1975/2015 (A.P. Tripathi and others vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) respectively. In pursuance of the aforesaid directions, the matter was re-examined and the arrears for the period from August 1983 up till June 2005, amounting to Rs.93,135/- have been paid to the petitioner. 2. The limited grievance in this Petition is that the authorities have not calculated the higher pay scale since 1981, without assigning any proper reason, even though in the cases of similarly situated employees, namely Hira Singh Payak (WPS No.3547/2016) and S.L. Dewangan (WPS No.3021/2009), the calculation has been made from 07.03.1981. Therefore, it is prayed that the difference of arrears for the period from 07.03.1981 up till July, 1983 be paid to the petitioner concerned. 3 3. Learned counsel for the State submits that the matter may be remitted for re-examination of the petitioner’s case, so as to ascertain whether the case of the petitioner is similarly situated to the case(s) of the other employees. 4. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and considering the limited grievance of the petitioner regarding equal treatment in the grant of the higher pay scale from the date of the appointment i.e. 07.03.1981, since the same benefit has been extended to other employees, it is expected that the authorities shall re-examine the matter and pass a reasoned order within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5. With the aforesaid observation, this Petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priyanka