1 2026:CGHC:5498 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2631 of 2023 V. Harihar Prasad Rao S/o Late Shri V. Gopal Rao, presently Aged About 66 Years Retired Senior Assistant, R/o Qtr. No. 11/8, Shri Nagar, Khamtarai, Near Hotel Paradise, Post WRS, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner Versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited Through Its Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, First Floor, Udyog Bhawan, Ring Road No. 1, Talibandha, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Deputy Manager Accounts And Salary, CSIDC Head Quarter, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Joint Director Chhattisgarh State Audit, Block-1, Second Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondents WPS No. 2649 of 2023 Hriday Prakash Mishra S/o Shri Bhagwati Prasad Mishra, presently Aged About 66 Years, Retired Senior Assistant, R/o Qtr. No. 69/1085, Behind Shitla Mata Mandir, Danganiya Raipur Post Sunder Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited Through Its Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Industrial YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.02.02 14:04:52 +0530 2 Development Corporation Limited, First Floor, Udyog Bhawan, Ring Road No.1 Talibandha, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Deputy Manager Accounts and Salary, CSIDC Head Quarter, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Joint Director Chhattisgarh State Audit, Block 1, Second Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. K.R. Nair, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 31.01.2026 1. Since a similar issue has been challenged in both the petitions, they were clubbed together, heard analogously, and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. In both the writ petitions, i.e. WPS No.2631/2023 and WPS No.2649/2023, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant of the benefit of second time pay scale to the petitioner after completion of 16 years of service and the consequential benefits thereon as per the circular dated 28.04.2008. 10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the representations of the petitioner as per the circular dated 28.04.2008. 3 10.3. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate.” 3. Brief facts of the cases are that the petitioners were initially appointed on clerical posts in the year 1984–85 and were subsequently promoted to the post of Senior Assistant vide order dated 06.07.1996. In pursuance of the circular dated 28.04.2008 issued by the Finance Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, the petitioners were granted the first time pay scale vide order dated 26.12.2008 with effect from 01.04.2006, on completion of 10 years of service in the same post. 4. As per the said circular, a Government employee is entitled to the second time pay scale on completion of 16 years of service in the same post. Since the petitioners continued to work on the post of Senior Assistant without any further promotion, they became entitled to the second time pay scale with effect from 05.07.2012. The petitioners made repeated representations to the competent authority for grant of the second time pay scale, however, no action was taken. Even after their retirement on attaining the age of superannuation in the year 2017 and 2018 respectively, their claim for grant of second time pay scale has not been considered, compelling them to file the present writ petitions. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the action and inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in not granting the second time pay scale to the petitioners is wholly illegal, 4 arbitrary, malafide in nature and contrary to the settled principles of service jurisprudence, besides being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that as per the circular dated 28.04.2008 issued by the Finance Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, a Government employee who continues on the same post without any further promotion is entitled to the grant of second time pay scale on completion of 16 years of service. Despite the petitioners fulfilling all the eligibility conditions prescribed under the said circular, the respondents have failed to extend the benefit of second time pay scale to them till date. 6. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners were rightly granted the first time pay scale with effect from 01.04.2006 upon completion of 10 years of service in the post of Senior Assistant. Since thereafter the petitioners continued to work on the same post without any promotion, they became entitled to the second time pay scale with effect from 05.07.2012, upon completion of 16 years of service in the same post. It is lastly submitted that the petitioners have completed more than 20 years of service on the same post, yet the legitimate benefit of second time pay scale along with consequential arrears has been unlawfully denied to them. The repeated representations submitted by the petitioners have also not been considered, and even after their retirement, no decision has been taken by the respondent authorities. Such inaction on the part of the respondents is arbitrary, unreasonable 5 and unsustainable in the eyes of law, thus warranting interference by this Court. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the petitioners are not entitled to the grant of second time pay scale as claimed. It is contended that during the entire period of their service, the petitioners never raised any claim or objection seeking grant of second time pay scale at the appropriate time. Having accepted the pay and allowances without protest, the petitioners are now estopped from raising such a claim after their retirement. He further submits that the petitioners have approached this Court after considerable delay and laches, and therefore, their claim is liable to be rejected on this ground alone. It is argued that service benefits, particularly those involving fixation of pay scale, are required to be claimed and settled during the period of active service, and once an employee retires, no new financial benefit can be extended, as it would unsettle the service records and create an unforeseen financial burden on the State exchequer. It is lastly submitted that the grant of a higher pay scale after retirement is not permissible under the relevant service rules and policy circulars, and in absence of any specific order or entitlement during service, the petitioners cannot claim such benefit post-retirement as a matter of right. On these grounds, learned State counsel prays for dismissal of the writ petitions. 6 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the material available with the writ petitions. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Government of West Bengal and others v. Dr. Amal Satpathi and others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3512, has categorically held that no retrospective service benefits can be granted from a date when an employee was not borne in the cadre, as such action would disturb settled rights and is contrary to service jurisprudence and it was held thus:- “19. It is a well settled principle that promotion becomes effective from the date it is granted, rather than from the date a vacancy arises or the post is created. While the Courts have recognized the right to be considered for promotion as not only a statutory right but also a fundamental right, there is no fundamental right to the promotion itself. In this regard, we may gainfully refer to a recent decision of this Court in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board v. Dharamdeo Das, wherein it was observed as follows: “18. It is no longer res integra that a promotion is effective from the date it is granted and not from the date when a vacancy occurs on the subject post or when the post itself is created. No doubt, a right to be considered for promotion has been treated by courts not just as a statutory right but as a fundamental right, at the same time, 7 there is no fundamental right to promotion itself. In this context, we may profitably cite a recent decision in Ajay Kumar Shukla v. Arvind Rai10 where, citing earlier precedents in Director, Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. v. Pravat Kiran Mohanty and Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab12, a three-Judge Bench observed thus: 41. This Court, time and again, has laid emphasis on right to be considered for promotion to be a fundamental right, as was held by K. Ramaswamy, J., in Director, Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. v. Pravat Kiran Mohanty in para 4 of the report which is reproduced below: ‘4……. There is no fundamental right to promotion, but an employee has only right to be considered for promotion, when it arises, in accordance with relevant rules. From this perspective in our view the conclusion of the High Court that the gradation list prepared by the corporation is in violation of the right of respondent-writ petitioner to equality enshrined under Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution, and the respondent- writ petitioner was unjustly denied of the same is obviously unjustified.’ 42. A Constitution Bench in Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, laying emphasis on Article 14 and Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India held that if a person who satisfies the eligibility and the criteria for promotion but still is not considered for promotion, then there will be 8 clear violation of his/her's fundamental right. Jagannadha Rao, J. speaking for himself and Anand, C.J., Venkataswami, Pattanaik, Kurdukar, JJ., observed the same as follows in paras 22 and 27: ‘Articles 14 and 16(1) : is right to be considered for promotion a fundamental right 22. Article 14 and Article 16(1) are closely connected. They deal with individual rights of the person. Article 14 demands that the ‘State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws’. Article 16(1) issues a positive command that: ‘there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State’. It has been held repeatedly by this Court that clause (1) of Article 16 is a facet of Article 14 and that it takes its roots from Article 14. The said clause particularises the generality in Article 14 and identifies, in a constitutional sense “equality of opportunity” in matters of employment and appointment to any office under the State. The word “employment” being wider, there is no dispute that it takes within its fold, the aspect of promotions to posts above the stage of initial level of recruitment. Article 16 (1) provides to every employee otherwise eligible for promotion or who comes within the zone of consideration, a fundamental right to be “considered” for promotion. Equal opportunity here means the 9 right to be “considered” for promotion. If a person satisfies the eligibility and zone criteria but is not considered for promotion, then there will be a clear infraction of his fundamental right to be “considered” for promotion, which is his personal right. “Promotion” based on equal opportunity and seniority attached to such promotion are facets of fundamental right under Article 16(1). * * * 27. In our opinion, the above view expressed in Ashok Kumar Gupta [Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P.13, and followed in Jagdish Lal [Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana14, and other cases, if it is intended to lay down that the right guaranteed to employees for being “considered” for promotion according to relevant rules of recruitment by promotion (i.e. whether on the basis of seniority or merit) is only a statutory right and not a fundamental right, we cannot accept the proposition. We have already stated earlier that the right to equal opportunity in the matter of promotion in the sense of a right to be “considered” for promotion is indeed a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16(1) and this has never been doubted in any other case before Ashok Kumar Gupta [Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P.], right from 1950.’ “20. In State of Bihar v. Akhouri Sachindra Nath, it was held that retrospective seniority 10 cannot be given to an employee from a date when he was not even borne in the cadre, nor can seniority be given with retrospective effect as that might adversely affect others. The same view was reiterated in Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India16, where it was held that when a quota is provided for, then the seniority of the employee would be reckoned from the date when the vacancy arises in the quota and not from any anterior date of promotion or subsequent date of confirmation. The said view was restated in Uttaranchal Forest Rangers' Assn. (Direct Recruit) v. State of U.P., in the following words: ‘37. We are also of the view that no retrospective promotion or seniority can be granted from a date when an employee has not even been borne in the cadre so as to adversely affect the direct recruits appointed validly in the meantime, as decided by this Court in Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India held that when promotion is outside the quota, seniority would be reckoned from the date of the vacancy within the quota rendering the previous service fortuitous. The previous promotion would be regular only from the date of the vacancy within the quota and seniority shall be counted from that date and not from the date of his earlier promotion or subsequent confirmation. In order to do justice to the promotes, it would not be proper to do injustice to the direct 11 recruits…… 38. This Court has consistently held that no retrospective promotion can be granted nor can any seniority be given on retrospective basis from a date when an employee has not even been borne in the cadre particularly when this would adversely affect the direct recruits who have been appointed validity in the meantime.” (emphasis supplied) 20. In the instant case, it is evident that while respondent No. 1 was recommended for promotion before his retirement, he could not assume the duties of the Chief Scientific Officer. Rule 54(1)(a) of the West Bengal Service Rules, clearly stipulates that an employee must assume the responsibilities of a higher post to draw the corresponding pay, thus, preventing posthumous or retrospective promotions in the absence of an enabling provision.” 10. It is not in dispute that the petitioners did not raise any claim for grant of second time pay scale during the subsistence of their service tenure and continued to accept the salary as fixed from time to time without demur. The claim for grant of second time pay scale has been raised for the first time after their retirement, which is legally impermissible. 11. The issue involved in the present petitions is no longer res integra and stands squarely covered by the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amal Satpathi (supra), wherein it has been 12 held that claims relating to pay fixation, higher pay scale or stepping up of pay must be raised during service and that such benefits cannot be claimed as a matter of right after retirement, particularly when the employee remained silent for a long period and acquiesced to the pay fixation. 12. In view of the settled legal position, this Court finds substance in the objection raised by the learned State counsel regarding delay, laches and acquiescence on the part of the petitioners. Granting the relief sought at this belated stage would not only unsettle settled service matters but would also cast an unwarranted financial burden on the State exchequer. 13. Accordingly, in view of the principles laid down in Amal Satpathi (supra) and considering the undisputed fact that the petitioners raised their claim only after retirement, the writ petitions being WPS No.2631/2023 and WPS No.2649/2023, devoid of merits and are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh