1 2026:CGHC:14684 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3606 of 2016 1 - Rajkumar Kujur S/o Shri Keshram Kujur Aged About 43 Years Assistant Teacher Nagriya Nikay, Govt. Primary School, Sajapahad, Block Khadgawa, District Korea Chhattisgarh R/o Mohan Nagar, Haldibadi, Chirimiri, District Korea, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - Bipul Chandra Bhoumik S/o Birendra Chandra Bhoumik Aged About 51 Years Assistant Teacher, Govt. Primary School, Pondihil Haldibadi, Khadgawa, District Korea, Chhattisgarh. R/o Mahuwa Dafai, Post Haldibadi, Chirmiri, District Korea, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Ramakantdhar Dwivedi S/o Shri Maheshdhar Dwivedi Aged About 45 Years Assistant Teacher Nagriya Nikay, Govt. Girls Primary School, Chintajhorpodi, Baikunthpur, District Korea, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Tirith Ram Sahu S/o Shri Butalu Sahu Aged About 45 Years Assistante Teacher Nagriya, Govt. Boys Primary School, Bada Bazar, Chirmiri, Block Khadgawa, District Korea, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 5 - Tripti Mundu W/o Ramnath Mundu Aged About 41 Years Assistant Teacher Nagriya, Govt. Primary School, Sadak Dafai, Block Khadgawa, District Korea, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 6 - Roja Stifan S/o Late Denial Stifan Aged About 48 Years Assistant Teacher Nagriya, Govt. Girls Primary School, Chittajhor, Podi, Block VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.05.01 20:25:20 +0530 2 Baikunthpur, District Korea, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 7 - Ramdas S/o Shri Vishwanath Aged About 46 Years Assistant Teacher Nagriya Nikay, Block Baikunthpur, District Korea, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 8 - Masih Tirky S/o Shri Nirmal Tirky Aged About 49 Years Assistant Teacher Nagriya Nikay, Govt. Primary School, Nawapara Chittajhor Podi, Block Baikunthpur, District Korea, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 9 - Amlan Tirky S/o Shri Nirmal Tirky Aged About 46 Years Assistant Teacher Nagriya Nikay, Govt. Boys Primary School, Chittajhor, Podi, Block Baikunthpur, District Korea, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 10 - Balwant S/o Murahu Ram Aged About 45 Years Assistant Teacher, Govt. Primary School, Pondrihil Haldibadi, Block Khadgawa, District Korea, Chhattisgarh. R/o Mahuwa Dafai, Post Haldibadi, Chirmiri, District Korea, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 11 - Puran Lal S/o Shri Kishori Lal Aged About 45 Years Assistant Teacher Nagriya Nikay, Govt. Primary School, Pondrihil Haldibadi, Block Khadgawa, District Korea, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 12 - Naru Rai S/o Late Gobinda Rai Aged About 41 Years Assistant Teacher, Govt. Primary School, Sajapahad, Block Khadgawa, District Korea, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 13 - Meena Irpachi S/o Shri Kishori Lal Aged About 41 Years Assistant Teacher Nagriya Nikay Govt. Primary School, Domanhil, Block Khadgawa, District Korea, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners versus 3 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administrative Development, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - Director, Urban Administrative Development Department, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Commissioner, Municipal Council Chirmiri, District Korea, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 4 - District Education Officer, Korea, District Korea, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh 5 - Block Education Officer, Khadgawa, District Korea, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Dhani Ram Patel, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, Deputy G.A. For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Subhi Rusia, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 27/03/2026 1. The petitioners, who are serving as Assistant Teachers (Nagriya Nikay) under the Urban Administration Department, have preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling in question the legality and correctness of the order dated 23.05.2013 (Annexure P/3) issued by the State Government, whereby pay fixation has been undertaken by reflecting an allegedly incorrect “existing pay scale”. The grievance of the petitioners is that despite 4 having been granted the benefit of upgradation (Kramonnati) upon completion of 10 years of service vide order dated 03.11.2011 (Annexure P/2), their pre-revised scale has been erroneously shown as Rs. 3800–100–5800 instead of Rs. 4500–125–7000, resulting in adverse and incorrect fixation of their revised pay scale. The petitioners, therefore, seek correction of the foundational error in the impugned order and consequential refixation of their pay. 2. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition seeking for the following reliefs: “10.1. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition by directing the State Government to redecide the schedule appended in order dated 23.05.2013, because it shows wrong existing pay scale therefore there is wrong pay fixation and proposed table be inserted so that correct fixation can be made. 10.2 Costs of the petition be awarded, and 10.3 Any other relief or direction which the Hon'ble Court may deems fit, be also awarded.” 3. The undisputed factual matrix of the case is that the petitioners were initially appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III between the years 1998 and 1999 under the Municipal establishment. Upon completion of 10 years of service, they were granted the benefit of Kramonnati (time- bound upgradation) in terms of order dated 03.11.2011, whereby their pay scale stood upgraded from Rs. 3800–100–5800 to Rs. 4500– 125–7000. Subsequently, by virtue of policy decision of the State Government, the cadre of Shiksha Karmis in urban local bodies was brought at par with Government teachers, and vide order dated 5 23.05.2013, a revised pay structure was made applicable with effect from 01.05.2013. ******* The grievance of the petitioners arises from the fact that while implementing the said order dated 23.05.2013, the respondents have taken into consideration an incorrect existing pay scale, namely Rs. 3800–100–5800, instead of the upgraded scale of Rs. 4500–125– 7000 already granted to them. According to the petitioners, this has resulted in erroneous fitment in a lower revised pay band, thereby causing financial prejudice. Representations made by the petitioners seeking correction of the said anomaly having not yielded any result, they have approached this Court seeking appropriate directions for proper fixation of pay. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned action of the respondents is ex facie arbitrary and suffers from non- application of mind, inasmuch as the existing pay scale taken into account for fixation is factually incorrect. It is contended that once the petitioners were granted the benefit of Kramonnati vide order dated 03.11.2011, the upgraded pay scale formed the basis of their emoluments and could not have been ignored while undertaking subsequent pay fixation. The impugned order, therefore, proceeds on a fundamentally erroneous premise and is liable to be corrected. ******* It is further submitted that fixation of pay on the basis of an incorrect foundational fact vitiates the entire exercise, and such error cannot be sustained in law. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhagwan Shukla v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 154, to contend that reduction in pay or adverse 6 financial consequences without justification and without affording due consideration is impermissible. It is also argued that the respondents have failed to specifically rebut the factual assertion regarding the actual pay scale drawn by the petitioners, and therefore, the impugned action deserves to be set aside with a direction for proper refixation. ******* It is further submitted, in rejoinder, that the reliance placed by the State on the judgment in Marisha Shrivastava v. State of Chhattisgarh and others, WPS No. 106 of 2014, decided on 26.09.2024, is misconceived and distinguishable, as the present case pertains to a different department and involves a specific factual error regarding the existing pay scale, which remains unanswered. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that there is no illegality in the impugned action and the pay fixation has been carried out strictly in accordance with the applicable policy. It is contended that the benefit of Kramonnati or time-bound upgradation is only a financial upgradation and does not alter the substantive post held by an employee. Therefore, while undertaking pay revision pursuant to the policy decision dated 23.05.2013, the fixation has rightly been done on the basis of the cadre post of Assistant Teacher and not on the basis of the upgraded scale. ******* It is further submitted that the issue raised in the present petition is no longer res integra and stands concluded by the decision of Marisha Shrivastava (supra), which has also attained finality in appeal. According to the State, the said judgment clearly lays down that pay revision is to be carried out on the basis of the post held and 7 not on the basis of Kramonnati scale, and therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed being barred by the principle of constructive res judicata. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3/Municipal Corporation submits that the answering respondent has merely implemented the policy decision taken by the State Government and has no independent role in determination of pay scales. It is contended that the impugned order having been issued by the State Government, the responsibility to justify or modify the same lies with the State authorities. It is further submitted that in view of subsequent orders issued by the State Government, the matter pertains to policy domain, and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents and pleadings annexed with the petition. 8. Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the controversy in the present case lies in a narrow compass, namely, whether the “existing pay scale” taken into account while effecting pay fixation pursuant to order dated 23.05.2013 is factually correct. 9. In the present case, the State Government granted time bound pay scale to the Shiksha Karmi of Local Bodies who have completed their 10 years of service and have not got any promotion, w.e.f. 01-11-2011. The relevant order dated 03.11.2011 is as under:- “ छቈኍसगढ़ शासन नगरीय ्ቚशासन एवं विवंकास विवंभाग मंቔኋलय दाऊ काल्यण िሺसह भावंन, रीयपुरी 8 --:: आदा शा ::-- रीयपुरी, दिदानका 03/11/2011 ******* ्ቅमंका एफ 4-79/2011/18: - रीज्य शासन एतदाቛኋरी ्ቚदा शा का नगरीय विनकाय ቌኔ ቔኋ( सचालिलत शालओं मं, काय-रीत उन लिशाቌኔका቞ኌमंय( का0 जि2नका3 स वं अवंधि6 10 वं्ቧ- पु8ण- ह0 चाका3 ह9 पुरीत पुदा0्ቐवित आ2 दिदानका तका नह; हुई ह9, का0 विनम्ननसरी ्ቅमं0्ቐवित वं तनमंन स्वंका@ त कारीत ह9:- ्ቅाሰक शिቌኋकाሰ व्ቇ व्ቔाሰन व्ቔनाሰन ्ቅाሰ्ቐति्ቔ व्ቔनाሰन 01 वंग---01 रुपुय 5300-150- 8300 रुपुय 6800-200--10800 02 वंग---02 रुपुय 4500-125- 7000 रुपुय 5300-150-8300 03 वंग---03 रुपुय 3800-100- 5800 रुपुय 4500-125-7000 टीप :- यह आदा शा दिदानका 01.11.2011 स ्ቚभावंशाल ह0ग। छቈኍसगढ़ का रीज्यपुल का नमं स तथा आदा शानसरी (एाሰ.आर.ठाक र) अवंरी सलिचावं छቈኍसगढ़ शासन ” नगरीय ्ቚशासन एवं विवंकास विवंभाग 10. Thereafter, vide order dated 23-05-2013 (Annexure P-3), the State Government issued another order with respect to grant of equal pay scale to the employees of Teacher (LB) cadre with that of the Government Teachers, who have completed 08 years of their service, and issued the following order:- छቈኍसगढ़ शासन नगरीय ्ቚशासन एवं विवंकास विवंभाग, मंቔኋलय, मंहनदाD भावंन, नय रीयपुरी // आदा शा // रीयपुरी, दिदानका 23 मंई, 2013 ******* ******* ्ቅमंका एफ 4-79/2011/18 :: रीज्य शासन ቛኋरी एतቌኚFवंरी मंቔኋ- पुरिरी्ቧदा का आदा शा ( आयटमं ्ቅमंका-78.2) दिदानका 11.05.2013 का पुरिरीपुलन मं, ्ቚदा शा का शाहरी ቌኔ ቔኋ का3 शालओं मं, 08 (आठ) वं्ቧ- स वं पु8ण- कारी चाका लिशाቌኔका ( नगरीय विनकाय) सवंग- का 9 कामं-चारिरीय( का0 दिदानका 01.05.2013 स शासका3य लिशाቌኔका( का समंतल्य विनम्ननसरी वं तनमंन स्वंका@ त कारीत ह9 :- क. शिቌኋक (न्ቇरय तिनकय) संव्ቇ व्ቔाሰन व्ቔनाሰन पनरशिቌኋ्ቔ व्ቔनाሰन 1. ቤኋख्यत ( नगरीय विनकाय) रू. 5300-150- 8300 रू. 9300-34,800+4300 2. लिशाቌኔका ( नगरीय विनकाय) रू. 4500-125- 7000 रू. 9300-34,800+4200 3. सहयका लिशाቌኔका ( नगरीय विनकाय) रू. 3800-100- 5800 रू. 5200-20,200+2400 ******* उपुरी0क्त वं तनमंन पुरी शासका3य लिशाቌኔका( का समंतल्य भाቈኍ( का3 पुቔኋत ह0ग। 2/ लिशाቌኔका ( नगरीय विनकाय) सवंग- का3 स वंकाल का3 गणन उनका3 ्ቚथामं विनयሹኌक्त पुरी काय-भारी ्ቇहण कारीन का3 वितलिथा स का3 2य ग। पुनरीቌኌቌኔत वं तन विन6-रीण का लिलय दिदानका 01.05.2013 का3 ሹኌQवित मं, 08 (आठ) वं्ቧ- का3 सत0्ቧ2नका स वं पु8ण- कारीन का उपुरीत ्ቚत्य का 02 (दा0) वं्ቧ- का3 पु8ण- स वं का लिलए एका वंቧኌ्ቧका वं तन वं@जिT का वं ट 2 दिदाय 2य ग। दिदानका 01.05.2013 का पुቐኋत ्ቚत्य का वं्ቧ- वंቧኌ्ቧका वं तन वं@जिT दा य ह0ग। 3/ उक्त स्वंका@ वित विवंቈኍ विवंभाग का य8.ओ.का. 2343 दिदानका 06.05.2013 ቛኋरी ्ቚदान का3 गई ह9। छቈኍसगढ़ का रीज्यपुल का नमं स तथा आदा शानसरी (एमं.डी. चा0पु़ቨ ) अपुरी सलिचावं छቈኍसगढ़ शासन नगरीय ्ቚशासन एवं विवंकास विवंभाग 11. The order dated 23-05-2013 (annexure P-3) clearly stipulates that the for calculating their 8 years of service, the period of service would be counted from the date of joining of their first appointment. After successfully completion of 8 years of their service, they would be entitled for weightage of one annual increment for every 2 years. It is evident from a conjoint reading of the Government orders dated 03- 11-2011 and 23-05-2013 that the grant of time-bound pay scale upon completion of 10 years of service was a distinct and independent 10 financial upgradation extended to Shiksha Karmi employees who had not received promotion, whereas the subsequent order dated 23-05- 2013 operates in an altogether different field by conferring parity in pay scale upon members of the Teacher (LB) cadre with Government Teachers on completion of 8 years of service. The latter benefit is clearly founded on the principle of cadre equivalence and not as a continuation, modification, or consequence of the earlier time-bound pay scale scheme. The stipulation in the order dated 23-05-2013 that the period of 8 years shall be reckoned from the date of initial appointment, along with the provision for grant of weightage in the form of one annual increment for every two years thereafter, further reinforces that the entitlement flows from cadre-based parity rather than any prior financial upgradation. Consequently, the claim for equal pay scale cannot be made contingent upon, nor regulated by, the grant of a time-bound pay scale, as both benefits emanate from separate policy considerations and operate independently. 12. Upon due consideration of the rival submissions and on a careful perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the foundational facts are not in dispute. The petitioners were initially appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III during the years 1998–1999 under the municipal establishment and, upon completion of 10 years of service, were granted the benefit of Kramonnati vide order dated 03.11.2011, whereby their pay scale stood upgraded from Rs. 3800- 100-5800 to Rs. 4500-125-7000. Subsequently, the State Government, as a matter of policy, decided to bring the Teacher (LB) cadre at par with Government Teachers and issued the order dated 23.05.2013 prescribing a revised pay structure. The grievance of the 11 petitioners arises from the fact that, while implementing the said policy, the respondents have taken into account the pre-upgraded scale for the purpose of fixation, which, according to the petitioners, has resulted in financial prejudice. 13. However, the pivotal issue is whether the benefit of Kramonnati, being a time-bound financial upgradation, could form the basis for fixation of pay under the subsequent policy dated 23.05.2013. A conjoint reading of the two policy decisions clearly demonstrates that they operate in distinct fields. The order dated 03.11.2011 granting Kramonnati is intended to provide relief against stagnation in the absence of promotional avenues and is purely personal to the employee without altering the substantive post or cadre. In contrast, the order dated 23.05.2013 is a comprehensive policy decision founded upon the principle of cadre equivalence, whereby members of the Teacher (LB) cadre are extended parity with Government Teachers upon completion of 8 years of service, to be reckoned from the date of initial appointment, along with incremental weightage. The said policy neither contemplates nor incorporates the earlier financial upgradation as a determinative factor for fixation. 14. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondents have rightly proceeded to fix the pay of the petitioners on the basis of the cadre post held by them and the corresponding prescribed pay structure, and not on the basis of the upgraded pay scale received under the Kramonnati scheme. Acceptance of the contention of the petitioners would amount to reading into the policy something which is neither expressly provided 12 nor implied, and would blur the distinction between a personal financial benefit and a cadre-based revision. The reliance placed by the State on the decision in "Marisha Shrivastava" (supra) also lends support to the said view that pay revision is to be undertaken with reference to the post and not prior to upgradations, though the “Marisha Shrivastava” case is concerned with the Teacher (Panchayat) cadre, but the issue involved in the said case are similar to the present case and the said case was dismissed with the conclusion that :- “The revision of pay scales of Teacher (Panchayat) cadre pursuant to the order dated 17-5-2013 read with the orders dated 4-12-2013 & 22-1-2014 will be on the basis of the pay scale of the post held by them. Such revision is not to be made on the basis of Kramonnati Vetanman or Samayman Vetanman.” 15. Consequently, no arbitrariness or illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents in undertaking the impugned fixation, and the writ petition, being devoid of substance, is liable to be and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved