1 2025:CGHC:5173 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 834 of 2025 • Smt. Sadhana Tiwari W/o Late Shri, Shankar Tiwari Aged About 62 Years Working At Office Of Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Jagdalpur, District-Baster At Jagdalpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Finance Department, Atal Nagar Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.). 2 - The Director Directorat Treasury, Account, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Somkant Verma, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Ajit Singh, Government Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 29/01/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.-1 to consider case of the petitioner for grant of benefits of Kramonnati, as considered by respondent No.1 to similar situated employee, within a reasonable period of time, as this Court deems fit. 10.2 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit may kindly be granted.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, petitioner is working as Deputy Director at office of Chief Engineer, Public Works Department. On 21.04.1984, petitioner joined service under respondents, respondent No.-1 considered case of the petitioner for promotion to the next higher and found fit for promotion, subsequently vide order dated 13.07.2009, order of promotion issued in favor of the petitioner, whereby petitioner promoted as Chhattisgarh State Finance Service Cadre from Sub-Ordinate Account Service Cadre. The Chhattisgarh State Finance Service (Gazetted) Rules, 2013 is applicable in the present case, service of the petitioner is governed by said rule. After completing requisite service (Six Year) in feeder cadre, petitioner was eligible for senior pay scale, subsequently respondent No.-1 considered her case for grant of Senior Pay Scale and found fit, the respondent No.-1 granted said pay scale to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2015, 3 the respondent No.-1 considered recruitment rule 2013, and granted her Senior Pay Scale, issued an order dated 15.06.2018. As per recruitment rule, after completing 4 years of service in feeder cadre, petitioner is entitled for promotion to the next higher post, she was entitled for the post of Joint Director or for Selection Grade, but respondent No.-1 has neither granted promotion to the petitioner nor given selection grade pay to the petitioner, she was eligible to next higher pay scale i.e. Selection Grade w.e.f. 01.01.2019. As per recruitment rule, petitioner is entitled for the pay scale of Senior Selection Grade, after completing 5 years of service in feeder cadre, she was eligible for Senior Selection Grade w.e.f. 01.01.2024, but respondent No.-1 has neither given promotion to her nor given senior selection grade pay scale. The petitioner completed total about 38 years of service under the department, respondent authority not considered case of the petitioner grant of kramonnati. During service of the petitioner there is no adverse remark, no departmental enquiry, no criminal case and her service record is good. Hence present petition for appropriate direction to the respondent No.-1 to consider case of the petitioner for grant of Kramonnati as per existence rule. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is seeking Kramonnati, the similarly situated persons have already 4 been granted on the basis of order dated 08.01.2025 and the case of the petitioner is akeemed to the persons who have been granted Kramonnati. Since, the petitioner is going to be retired from his service on 31.01.2025 as such the petitioner is praying that she may be allowed to file a representation before the concerned authority so that it may be decided and her retiral benefits may be fixed on the basis of her Kramonnati. 4. On the other hand learned counsel for the State opposes the same. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Respondent authorities are directed to decide the representation within a short span so that the retiral dues may be granted to the petitioner in accordance with fixation of pay scale. 7. A week’s time is granted to the petitioner to file detailed representation before the authorities concerned, and, in turn, authorities concerned are directed to decide the representation with in a period of four weeks’ from the date of production of this order. 8. With this observation and direction, the instant petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat