1 2026:CGHC:6744 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2398 of 2023 1 - Shankar Lal Yadav S/o Radheshyam Yadav Aged About 32 Years Working As Assistant Professor Education (Music), At Kamla Nehru Mahavidyalaya, Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Kamla Nehru Mahavidyalaya Committee Through Its Chairman, K. N. College, Rani Road Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 2 - Kamla Nehru Mahavidyalaya Through Its Principal K. N. College, Rani Road Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - Bilaspur University Through Its Registrar, Old High Court Building, Near Gandhi Chowk, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The President Administration Committee, Kamla Nehru Mahavidyalaya Rani Road, Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 WPS No. 4449 of 2023 1 - Vedbrat Upadhyay S/o T.P. Upadhyay Aged About 41 Years R/o Infront Of Kalibadi, Secl Road, Mudapar Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Kamla Nehru Mahavidyalaya Committee Through Its Chairman, K.N. College Korba Rani Road, Korba (C.G.) 2 - Kamla Nehru Mahavidyalaya Through Its Principal, K.N. College Korba Rani Road, Korba (C.G.) 3 - Bilaspur University Through Its Registrar, Old High Court Building, Near Ghandhi Chow, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Kamla Nehru Mahavidyalaya Through Its President, K.N. College Korba Rani Road, Korba (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. D.D. Yadav, Advocate For Respondents No. 1,2 & 4:- Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 :- Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 06.02.2026 1. The contents and factual matrix involved in both the writ petitions 3 would revel that the bone of contention in them is one and same, as such, both the writ petitions are clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common order. 2. The present writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners challenging the illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory action on the part of the respondent authorities in not extending the benefits of the revised pay scale as per the recommendations of the Sixth and Seventh Pay Commissions, as notified by Respondent No. 3 – Bilaspur University. 3. Writ petition No. 2398 of 2023 has been taken as lead case in order to decide the issue involved in these matters. The petitioner in the said writ petition has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby directing the respondents to grant pay scale as per the revised pay scale which was recommended by the 6th and 7th pay commission and notified by the respondent no. 3 university with all the consequential benefits including interest @ 18% per annum, to the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a directions to the respondent University to monitor the action of the respondent college in respect of strictly compliance of statute no. 28 of the University, in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pleased to inflict the exemplary cost 4 upon the respondent no. 1 to 2 for torturing causing mental torment and exploiting the petitioner and violating fundamental and human rights of the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 10.4 Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted. An affidavit is filed herewith in support of this petition. 10.5 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 4. Facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor (Education – Music) vide order dated 30.10.2015 in Respondent No. 2 College in the pay scale of Rs. 15,600–39,100/- after duly participating in the selection process conducted in accordance with Statute No. 28 (College Code) of the University. Since his appointment, the petitioner has been discharging his duties satisfactorily without any complaint or adverse remark. Respondent No. 2 College is affiliated with Respondent No. 3 University. The University issued a notification dated 18.08.2015 granting the benefit of the Sixth Pay Commission to teachers of non-government colleges appointed under Statute No. 28. Despite the said notification and repeated representations made by the petitioner, the benefit of the revised pay scale has not been extended to him. The petitioner submits that his appointment was duly approved by the University and his service book was prepared by the college. After completion of probation, his services stood confirmed, and he became 5 a regular employee governed by Statute No. 28. However, the respondent college failed to release salary in accordance with statutory provisions. It is further alleged that the respondent college has acted in violation of statutory obligations and directions issued by the University, and has deliberately withheld lawful salary benefits, compelling the petitioner to approach this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed strictly in accordance with Statute No. 28 of the College Code and his service conditions are governed by the statutory provisions framed by the University, which are binding upon the affiliated college. It is contended that once the respondent University issued notification dated 18.08.2015 granting the benefit of the Sixth Pay Commission to similarly situated teachers, the respondent college had no authority to deny the same to the petitioner. The action of the respondent college in withholding the revised pay scale is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that despite repeated representations, the respondents failed to discharge their statutory obligation to release lawful salary, compelling the petitioner to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Learned counsel also submits that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in a similar matter, and therefore the petitioner is entitled to the same relief. 6. Learned counsel for Respondents No. 1, 2 & 4 submits that the present writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has an 6 alternative and efficacious statutory remedy under Section 38 of the College Code. It is argued that any dispute arising out of service conditions between the governing body and an employee must first be adjudicated by the statutory Committee consisting of nominees of the Vice-Chancellor, the Executive Council, and the Principal. Therefore, the petitioner must approach the said Committee before invoking writ jurisdiction. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. From perusal of the record it is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed under Statute No. 28, the respondent college is affiliated with the University, the University has issued directions regarding implementation of the revised pay scales, and the present dispute relates to service benefits arising out of statutory service conditions. Section 38 of the College Code provides a specific mechanism for adjudication of service disputes between the college and its employees, and the statutory Committee constituted thereunder is competent to examine factual aspects, financial compliance and entitlement of salary benefits. Though the grievance raised by the petitioner involves statutory rights, the existence of a specialized statutory remedy cannot be ignored, as it is well settled by the Supreme Court and this Court that when an effective alternative remedy exists, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be exercised unless exceptional circumstances are made out. In the present case, the dispute requires factual adjudication and 7 examination of records, which is more appropriately undertaken by the statutory Committee, and therefore this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner must first avail the remedy under Section 38 of the College Code. 9. In view of the above, the present writ petitions are disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to approach the competent Committee under Section 38 of the College Code by filing a detailed representation along with a copy of this order. Upon receipt of such representation, the Committee shall consider and decide the grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law and shall pass a reasoned and speaking order, preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of submission of the representation, after providing an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha