1 2026:CGHC:14828 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5981 of 2022 Mamta Singh W/o Shri Ramkishor Singh Aged About 30 Years Teacher, (Biology), R/o Village Post- Gangikot, Block- Gangikoth, Tahsil- Surajpur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of School Education, Mantralya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Divisional Joint Director Education Division, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Senior Treasury officer Surajpur, District- Surajpur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - District Education officer Surajpur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Block Education officer Surajpur, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : None For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhyuday Tripathi, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 30/03/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:- 2 “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case from possession of the respondents for its kind perusal; 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ/order/direction the respondent authorities to stop illegal deduction some part of salary and return the amount already deduction illegally. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem fit.” 2. It appears that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Teacher (Biology) vide order dated 10.12.2021 and posted at Primary School, Gangikoth Khas, Block Surajpur, District Surajpur. 3. As per the prevailing policy of the State Government, newly appointed teachers were kept under a probation period of three years. During this period, they were entitled to receive a fixed stipend instead of regular pay, calculated progressively at 70%, 80%, and 90% of the prescribed pay scale for the first, second, and third year respectively. The petitioner has sought a direction to the respondent authorities to grant regular pay scale benefits instead of the said stipend. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that a policy decision was taken by the Government of Chhattisgarh vide circular dated 28.07.2020 introducing stipend system for newly appointed Government employees. However, the said policy has subsequently been withdrawn by the State Government vide notification dated 12.09.2023; thus, the present petition has become infructuous. 5. Heard. 6. From a perusal of the notification dated 12.09.2023, it is evident that the earlier policy dated 28.07.2020 has been withdrawn. By virtue of the said withdrawal, the State Government has restored the entitlement of 3 government employees, including teachers, to receive regular pay scale and admissible allowances instead of the stipend system. 7. The Clause 3 & 3.1 of the notification dated 12.09.2023 is reproduced as under : “3- राज्य शासन ቛኋरा विचारा परान्त सधी भत स विनयवि परा परिराቌኋयधिधी ेሰ स्टायपण्ड के ቚኋधीन के सेሰ्቎ केरा, उस पद के तनेሰन के न्य&नतेሰ तन परा तन विनधी'रिरात विकेय जान के विन्ቓ'य धि*य गय है-, धिजासके धि*ए विनम्ननसरा ቚኋधीन विकेय जात है0 :- 3.1- सधी भत परा परिराቌኋधिधी ेሰ उस पद के तनेሰन के न्य&नतेሰ तन विदय जान के ቚኋधीन वि्ቈ विभग के2 प&' अधिधीस&चान विदन4के 28.07.2020 स भ&त*ቌኋ ቚኋभ स *ग& है5ग। विदन4के 28.07.2020 स इस आदशा के जारा है न के ेሰध्य विनय शासके2य सके5 के तन विनधी'रा्ቓ विनयवि विदन4के स केल्पविनके (Notional) आधीरा परा विकेय जाकेरा स्तविके आधि;'के *भ इस आदशा विदन4के स ቚኋ्቎ है ग। इस ቚኋकेरा केल्पविनके (Notional) आधीरा परा विकेय गय तन विनधी'रा्ቓ के फ*स्रूप विकेस ቚኋकेरा के एरिरायस' के2 राविशा दय नहै है ग।” 8. A plain reading of the clause would show that the State Government has abolished stipend system applicable during probation for direct recruits and instead thereof provides the minimum of the pay scale, effective retrospectively from 28.07.2020, with notional pay fixation for appointees during these period with no arrears. 9. In view of the above discussed facts, the present petition is hereby disposed of. The petitioner would be at liberty to revive her prayer, if any cause of action still subsists. No order as to costs. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim