1 2026:CGHC:22028 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1020 of 2022  Jaishankar Pandey S/o Late Sakal Deo Pandey Aged About 53 Years R/o Near Maharshi Aashram Hatkachura, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Bakward Class Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. Commissioner Tribal Development Indiravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. Secretary, Mata Rukamani Sewa Sansthan Samiti Dimrapal Tahsil And District Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. S.P. Kale, Advocate For State : Mr. Abhyuday Tripathi, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 11.05 .2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 The Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records leading to the impugned in-action for its kind perusal. 10.2 Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the letter dated 09/02/2021 (Annexure-P/1). SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.05.12 13:52:55 +0530 2 10.3 Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to directing the Respondent to make Payment of regular annual increment from year 2000 and time scale from the 24/12/2013 with and continue to pay regularly in the interest of justice. 10.4 Any other relief, which Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the Petitioner in the interest of justice. 10.5 Cost of the Petition be also awarded.” 2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Upper Division Teacher under the respondent No. 3 vide order dated 01.11.1993. He completed 20 years of service on 14.12.2013, and thereafter, moved an application claiming therein second time pay scale pursuant to circular dated 28.04.2008. It is admitted fact that respondent No. 3 is 100% grant-in-aid institution. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondent No. 3 on the ground that he remained absent from service for 407 days. The petitioner is claiming second time pay scale w.e.f. 14.12.2013. 3. Mr. S.P. Kale, learned Advocate would submit that the petitioner was never remained absent for 407 days. He would contend that no show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner for his unauthorized absence, and no penalty was ever inflicted, thus, the observation made in the impugned order dated 09.12.2021 is baseless and erroneous. He would further contend that according to the circular dated 28.04.2008, the petitioner is entitled to get second time pay scale after completion of 20 years of service from 14.12.2013. He would pray to allow this petition. 4. On the other hand, learned Advocates appearing for respondents would oppose. Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate appearing for respondent No. 3 would submit that as the petitioner remained absent for 407 days during his 3 service tenure, therefore, he has not been found entitled to get the benefit of second time pay scale. He would contend that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that he never remained absent from service. He would submit that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Upper Division Teacher under respondent No. 3 on 01.11.1993. He completed 20 years of service on 14.12.2013. Respondent No. 3 is a 100% grant-in-aid institution, and the circular issued by the State Government dated 28.04.2008 applies to the said institution. The petitioner’s claim for the second time pay scale from 14.12.2013 has been rejected only on the ground that he remained absent from service for a period of 407 days. 7. The respondent No. 3 has filed reply, but no document has been produced to substantiate that any show-cause notice was ever issued to the petitioner for his unauthorized absence. There is no material to establish that, at any point of time, any penalty was inflicted upon the petitioner on account of his unauthorized absence. Thus, the observation with regard to absence recorded by respondent No. 3 in its order dated 09.12.2021 has no foundation, and therefore, the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the order dated 09.12.2021 is hereby quashed. The respondent No. 3 is directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner in light of the circular dated 28.04.2008, and subsequent circular dated 23.09.2009 expeditiously, preferably within a period of 120 days. 8. With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), the instant petition is 4 hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant