1 2026:CGHC:7094 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1319 of 2025 1 - Vijay Kumar Anand S/o Late Rameshwar Prasad Anant, Aged About 56 Years Working On The Post Of Sthal Sahayak In The Office Of S.D.O. Jal Sanshadhan Sub Division Saranggarh Water Resources Department District Saranggarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.). 2 - Narmada Prasad Tiwari S/o Late Gend Ram Tiwari Aged About 61 Years Working On The Post Of Sthal Sahayak In The Office Of S.D.O. Jal Sanshadhan Sub Division Saranggarh Water Resources Department District Saranggarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.). 3 - Rameshwar Nishad S/o Late Amar Singh Nishad, Aged About 77 Years Retrired Sthal Sahayak In The Office Of S.D.O. Jal Sanshadhan Sub Division Saranggarh Water Resources Department District Saranggarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.). ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Water Resources Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.). 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Finance Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.). 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, General Administration Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.). SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Date: 2026.02.10 13:10:01 +0530 2 4 - Engineer In Chief, Water Resources, Department, Sihawa Bhawan New Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.). 5 - Chief Engineer, Department Of Water Resources Hasdeo Kachhar Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.). 6 - Executive Engineer, Jal Sanshadhan Division Raigarh Water Resources Department District Raigarh (C.G.). 7 - Joint Director, Pension And Account Treasury Department Bilaspur Division, District Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 09/02/2026 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, this case is heard finally. 2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that he is not pressing this writ petition on merit. However, he is making prayer for disposal of this writ petition in terms of order dated 12.06.2025 passed by this Court in WPS No.3862 of 2025 (Ishwar Lal Yadav Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors) 3. Learned counsel for the State submits that in view of limited prayer made by learned counsel for petitioners, he is having no objection. 4. Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No.3862 of 2025 (supra) while considering the pleadings made in writ petition (WPS No.3862 of 2025), has made following observation: “2.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in similarly situated facts and the question of law, a batch of the writ petition, the leading case of which was Writ Petition (S) No. 2904 3 of 2005 [Dwarikadas Vaishnav & another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) and others] has been considered and decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.12.2012, in which, the petitioners, in those cases, have been granted liberty to file a fresh representation before competent authority, therefore, this petition may also be disposed of in light of that order directing the respondents-Competent Authority to consider the case of the petitioner for revision of his pay scale in accordance with the Notification dated 14.10.1992 which was modified subsequently as 14.10.1982) issued by State of Madhya Pradesh, as the petitioner was earlier working as daily wage employee and subsequently, his services were regularized. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents would submit that earlier the respondent/State had already considered the issue of the petitioner in the light of the judgment passed by State Administrative Tribunal, Gwalior Bench in Laxmi Narayan Upadhyay v. State of M.P., however, he submits that if the petitioner file a fresh representation, the State will consider his case in light of the notification as mentioned herein above. 4. In view of the above submissions made by the parties, this petition is disposed of. If the petitioner files a fresh representation before the competent authority, the same shall be considered and decided by the competent authority in light of the aforesaid notification expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a certified copy of this order.” 4 5. In view of submission of learned counsel for respective parties, this writ petition is also disposed off in terms of order passed in WPS No.3862 of 2025 (supra). Petitioners will be at liberty to submit representation before the competent authority and if such representation is submitted, competent authority shall consider and take decision on it in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of representation. 6. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-