1 2026:CGHC:10985-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 155 of 2026 1 - Shivchandra Saha S/o Shri Gosai Saha Aged About 61 Years Upper Division Teacher Mata Rukmani Kanya Ashram, Dimrapal, Distt. Bastar, Chhattisgarh ... appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribes And Backward Classes Welfare Department, D.K. Bhawan, Raipur C.G. 2 - Collector Tribal Department, District Bastar, Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh, District Bastar (Jagdalpur), C.G. 3 - Mata Rukhmani Seva Sansthan Through Its Secretary, Mata Rukhmani Seva Sansthan Dimarapal, District Bastar Chhattisgarh, District- Bastar (Jagdalpur), C.G. ... Respondent(s) For appellant (s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Deshmukh, Advocate For State For Respondent No. 3 : : Mr. Prasoon Bhaduri, Dy. Advocate General Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.03.03 18:41:58 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 03.03.2026 1. Heard Mr. Vinod Kumar Deshmukh, Advocate, appearing for the learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Prasoon Bhaduri, Dy. Advocate General and Mr. Keshav Dewangan, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 in the present writ appeal. 2. Though, against the impugned order dated 18.07.2025 passed by learned Single Judge, the appellant Shivchandra Saha has filed a writ appeal bearing WA No. 83/2026 before this Court, which was dismissed by this Court on 28.01.2026 on the ground of limitation, but the present appeal is beyond time. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that after passing of the order dated 28.07.2025, the appellant preferred a review petition before the learned Single Judge and the same was dismissed also on 03.11.2025 and the present writ appeal is within time, therefore, the same may be decided on its merits. Hence, we proceed to hear the matter finally. 3. The present writ appeal has been filed by the writ appellant against the order dated 28.07.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No. 4284/2016 whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner for grant of revised pay scale is partly allowed to 3 the extent that the petitioner is entitled to get the difference of pay scale prior to three years from the date of filing of this writ petition i.e. 24.08.2016 till he was removed from service on 10.02.2018 and order dated 03.11.2025 passed in Rev. P. No. 326/2015 whereby the review petition the appellant for seeking review of the order dated 28.07.2025 only to the extent that the petitioner would be entitled to get the difference of pay scale prior to three years from the date of filing of the first WP No. 7575/2006 filed by the petitioner i.e. 19-12-2006 till he was removed from service on 10.02.2018 and fix the pay scale of the petitioner notionally and arrears of difference of pay shall be paid to the petitioner from 19- 12-2003 till he was removed from service on 10.02.2018 with 7% interest has been dismissed. Thereafter, the appellant prefer the instant appeal before this Hon'ble Court with the following prayer:- “ A This Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the record of the Writ Petition (8) No. 4284/2016 and W.P. No. 7875/2006 for its kind perusal. B. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow the instant writ appeal and set aside the order dated 03-11-2025 passed in REVP No. 326 of 2025 and modify the order dated 28-07-2025 passed in Writ Petition (S) No. 4284/2016 only to the extent that the petitioner/appellant is entitled to get the difference of pay scale prior to three years from the date of filing of the first W.P.No. 7575/2006 i.e. 19-12-2006 till he was removed from service on 10.02.2018 And further directed the respondents to fix the pay scale of the petitioner notionally and arrears of difference of pay shall be paid to the petitioner from 19-12-2003 till he was removed from service on 10.02.2018 with 7% interest and 4 further directed the respondents to grant proper revised pay scale w.e.f. 01/01/1996 as well as benefit of 6th Pay Commission scale at par with similar situated employee who are getting proper pay scale from the due date with all monetary benefits and arrears of salary C. Any other relief as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court” 4. The brief facts of the case are that The petitioner was appointed on 01.04.1995 as Banchalak/UDT in Mata Rukmani Adiwasi Kanya Ashram under a Government-aided society receiving 100% grant-in-aid, but despite continuation in service he was paid only the initial pay scale of Rs. 740/- without any increments and was denied the benefits of revised pay scales under the 5th and 6th Pay Commissions, unlike similarly situated employees. He initially filed W.P. No. 7575/2006 seeking revised pay scale benefits in light of the judgment in Smt. A. Lall v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, pursuant to which he submitted representations that were rejected by the authorities. Thereafter, he filed WPS No. 4284/2016 challenging the rejection and seeking parity in pay along with arrears, which was partly allowed by order dated 28.07.2025 directing payment of differential salary only for three years prior to filing of the writ petition (from 24.08.2013 till removal on 10.02.2018) with 7% interest, while his petition challenging termination was dismissed. His subsequent Review Petition No. 326/2025 seeking arrears from an earlier date was dismissed on 5 03.11.2025, leading to the present writ appeal challenging the limitation of arrears and seeking modification of the said orders. 5. It is most respectfully submitted on behalf of the appellant that the learned Single Judge has committed an error apparent on the face of the record in restricting the arrears to three years prior to the filing of WPS No. 4284/2016, overlooking the fact that the said writ petition was the second round of litigation arising out of rejection of representation pursuant to the earlier order dated 10.11.2009 passed in WP No. 7575/2006; therefore, the cause of action relates back to the first round of litigation filed on 19.12.2006 and the appellant is legally entitled to fixation of pay and arrears at least three years prior thereto. It is further submitted that the appellant, a permanent employee working as Sanchalak/Upper Division Teacher since 1995 in a 100% grant-in- aid institution, was arbitrarily denied the benefit of revised pay scales under the 5th and 6th Pay Commissions, though the same were extended to all similarly situated employees, and his increments were illegally withheld merely due to pendency of proceedings against a charge-sheet, which cannot be a lawful ground to deny statutory pay revision. The action of the respondents in paying the appellant only Rs. 1421/- per month while extending revised scales to other employees performing identical duties is discriminatory, violative of the principle of “equal pay for equal work” and contrary to Articles 14 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India; hence, the appellant is entitled to notional 6 fixation and payment of arrears from 01.01.2003 (being three years prior to the first writ petition) till his removal from service with 7% interest, and the impugned orders deserve to be modified accordingly. 6. Learned counsel for the respective respondents would submit that the appellant cannot claim parity with the other employees of the institutions who are getting pay scale with the other employees as the appellant’s appointment was not in accordance with law and other employees who are being granted pay scale by the respondents, are eligible to appoint as per the qualification as well as age and other required conditions for appointment with respondent No. 3. It has also been contended that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is not applicable in the present facts of the case. So far as termination of the appellant, it has been contended that the termination order passed against the appellant is legal and justified as the appellant was not fulfilling the required condition for employment as he was over aged at the time of getting initial appointment. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 8. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the documents on record, we are going through the judgment passed by learned Single Judge and observed that the petitioner initially filed WP No. 7575/2006 seeking grant of revised pay scale in terms of the decision in Smt. 7 A. Lall v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others (W.P. No. 4108/2005), pursuant to which this Hon’ble Court on 10.11.2009 directed the respondents to decide his representation accordingly; however, though similarly situated teachers were granted revised pay, the petitioner’s representation dated 26.11.2009 was rejected on the ground of pendency of WPS No. 7557/2007, wherein he had challenged a show cause notice and charge-sheet alleging irregular appointment on account of age and domicile. The said writ petition was disposed of on 08.01.2018 directing conclusion of departmental enquiry, and thereafter the petitioner’s services were terminated on 10.02.2018. His representation against termination was rejected by the Director, Public Instruction on 13.09.2021 holding that he was not a domicile of Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh and was not entitled to age relaxation, leading to filing of WPS No. 6196/2021 challenging the termination and seeking reinstatement with consequential benefits. 9. We also observed that the learned Single Judge, in his judgment also pointed out that :- 9. So far as allegation leveled against the petitioner that he is not the domicile of the State of Madhya Pradesh when he has obtained the service on 01.04.1995 with respondent No. 3 whereas the circular dated 31.01.1994 specifically provides that the relaxation of three years will be applicable to the domicile of the State of Madhya Pradesh only. The petitioner has also not been able to deny that he was not over-aged at the time of securing the employment, therefore, there is no dispute about the fact that at the 8 time of appointment, the petitioner was over-aged for 1 year, 1 month & 10 days. The record of the case would show that the petitioner was granted appointment though he was ineligible, therefore, his appointment was not in accordance with law from inception and he was continued in service in view of the interim order passed by this Court. As such, it cannot be held that the termination order was passed after 26 years o appointment. This submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is liable to be rejected. 10. The learned Single Judge also considered the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rushibhal Jagdishchandra Pathak Vs. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation reported in (2022) 18 SCC 144, wherein it has been held in paragraph 15, 16 & 19 as under- 15. The aforesaid ratio in Tarsem Singh (supra) has been followed by this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v Yogendra Shrivastava14 and Asger Ibrahim Amin v. Life Insurance Corporation of India. 16. In the facts of the present case, it is accepted that the respondent Corporation had accepted the interpretation rendered by the High Court of Gujarat to the Scheme whereby the appellants, on financial upgradation, would be entitled to the higher grade pay scale of the next promotional post, which is Rs.5,000- 8,000/- in the present case. As noted above, the impugned judgment of the Division Bench accepts the said position and grants the appellants the said pay- 9 scale but restricts the benefit from the date of the judgment of the Single Judge in the Writ Petitions filed by the appellants, that is, with effect from 31 st July 2018. The Division Bench should not have taken the date of the decision/judgment of the Single Judge for grant of the said benefit in view of the decision and ratio in Tarsem Singh. (supra) which has been followed in several other decisions. That apart, the date of the decision of the Single Judge is a fortuitous circumstance. Only the date of filing of the writ petition is relevant while examining the question of delay and laches or limitation. The appellants would, in consonance with the case law referred to above, be entitled to the arrears for three years before the date of filing of the Writ Petitions. 19. Recording the aforesaid, we partly allow the present appeals with a direction that the appellants would be entitled to arrears in the pre-revised pay-scale of Rs.5,000-8,000/- for three years prior to the date of filing of the Wit Petitions along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum with effect from 1 st September 2017. The arrears, with interest, would be paid within a period of four months from the date of pronouncement of this judgment A computation sheet/statement of accounts on the basis of which payment is made by the respondent- Corporation shall be furnished to the appellants. The 10 impugned judgment is, accordingly, partly set aside and the Writ Petitions filed by the appellants would be treated as allowed in the aforesaid terms There would be no order as to costs." and In view of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Rushibhai Jagdishchandra Pathak (supra), the leaned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to get the difference of pay scale prior to three years from the date of filing of this writ petition i.e. 24.08.2016 till he was removed from service on 10.02.2018. 11. Thus, considering the submissions made by the parties and in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 12. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Sagrika