1 2026:CGHC:22631 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4549 of 2022  Kamta Prasad Sinha S/o Manglu Ram Sinha Aged About 60 Years Presently Posted And Working As Vaccinator O/o Veterinary Hospital, Palnar, R/o Ward No. 02, Palnar, Nakulnar, Dantewada, District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Animal Husbandry And Veterinary Services, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Director Directorate Of Veterinary Services, Indrawati Bhavan, Ground Floor, Block-3 Naya Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh, Police Station - Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Deputy Director Veterinary Services, Dantewada, Distt.- South Bastar (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Syed Majid Ali, Advocate For State : Mr. R.C.S. Deo, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 13.05 .2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant the benefits of time pay scale in favor of the petitioners within the stipulated time period. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to take appropriate decision on the pending representation of the petitioner within a stipulated SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.05.15 11:19:57 +0530 2 time period treating the petitioner in service from his initial date of appointment. 10.3 That the Hon'ble Court further pleased to grant such other relief(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed in the respondent department as Daily Wager on 24.01.1987. His services were regularized against post of Vaccinator along with 17 other employees vide order dated 28.01.1992. Mr. Majid Ali would submit that according to the circular dated 04.08.2010 issued by Finance Department, petitioner is entitled for second time bound pay scale after completion of 20 years of service. He would submit that said benefit has already been extended to 17 similarly situated employees. He would contend that vide order dated 22.07.2024, the State was directed to verify as to whether similarly situated persons have been granted benefit of second time bound pay scale or not. He would submit that in the affidavit, particularly in para 6, it is categorically stated that similarly placed employees were granted benefit of second time bound pay scale for which they were not legally entitled and explanation has been sought from the concerned authority. He would contend that if similarly situated employees have already been extended second time bound pay scale, the petitioner is also entitled for similar relief. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents would oppose. Mr. Deo would submit that 17 similarly situated employees were extended benefit of second time bound pay scale erroneously and explanation has been sought from Director. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 3 5. Taking into consideration the fact that rightly or wrongly benefit of second time bound pay scale has already been extended to the other employees, the petitioner cannot be discriminated. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of second time bound pay scale expeditiously, preferably within a period of 120 days. 6. With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant