1 2026:CGHC:14630 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6901 of 2021 1 - Laxman Prasad Sahu S/o Panch Ram Aged About 80 Years Retired Executive Engineer , R/o Janak Bhawan 8, Shantikunj, Haridwar Uttarakhand., District : Hardwar, Uttaranchal ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Energy Department, Mantralaya , Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar , Nawa Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chairman (Hr) Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited (Csphcl), Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Managing Director (Hr) Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited (Csphcl), Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Executive Director Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited , Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Joint Secretary Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited , Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For petitioner : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate For State : Mr. Abhiyuday Tripathi, Panel Lawyer For respondents No.2 to 5 : Dr. Veena Nair, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 27.03.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) : “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to provide benefit of the higher pay scale to the petitioner from the date he is entitled i.e. from the date 27-09-1994 with an interest @ 14% and arrears thereof. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to pay Rs.50 lakhs causing mental and physical harassment to the petitioner. -2- 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem-fit and appropriate, in the interest of justice.” 2. Mr.Koshta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that at the relevant time, the petitioner was holding the post of Executive Engineer under respondents No.2 to 5. He would further submit that the petitioner was not extended benefit of second higher pay scale on the ground that his ACRs for the years 1995-1996 and 1996-1997 were not upto the marks. He would contend that ACRs for the years 1995-1996 and 1996-1997 were upgraded, subsequently, therefore, a representation was made to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for higher pay scale but same has been rejected vide order dated 31.08.2020. He would further contend that ACRs for the years 1995-1996 and 1996-1997 were upgraded, therefore, the petitioner would be entitled for higher pay scale from 01.08.1996 and 05.01.1997. 3. On the other hand, Dr. Nair, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.2 to 5 would oppose submissions. She would submit that ACRs of the petitioner were upgraded vide order dated 08.09.1999 and from said date, he would be eligible for upgraded higher pay scale or higher pay scale. She would submit that the respondent authorities have rightly rejected the representation made by the petitioner. 4. Mr. Tripathi, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would submit that there is a dispute between the petitioner and respondents No.2 to 5. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused 3 the documents placed on record. 6. A perusal of the documents would show that ACRs of the petitioner for the years 1995-1996 and 1996-1997 were upgraded vide order dated 08.09.1999. 7. In the matter of Dr. Veena Tripathi Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Higher Education and others, reported in 2023 SCC Online Chh 3860, the Coordinate Bench held that “since ACR for the period in question has lost its significance as such respondents are also directed to consider the case of the petitoner for grant of promotion on the post of Professor within two months.” 8. In the present case, though ACRs for the years 1995-1996 and 1996-1997 were not upto the marks but later on, those ACRs were upgraded vide order dated 08.09.1999 and thus, the adverse entries made in the ACRs for the years 1995-1996 and 1996-1997 lost their efficacy and the respondent authorities should have considered the claim of the petitioner for higher pay scale from said date. Accordingly, order dated 31.08.2020 is hereby quashed. The respondents No.2 to 5 are directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner afresh. Subsequent order passed by the respondent authorities dated 13.06.2025 is also quashed. 9. With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha