1 2026:CGHC:26606 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 309 of 2022 • Painsath Das Kulteshwar S/o Late Shri Jugal Das Aged About 55 Years Working As Assistant Grade - 3, Govt. Higher Secondary School, Belargaon (Kaspur), Block Nagari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, P.S. Rakhi, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. The Director Directorate Of Public Instruction, Indravati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. The Commissioner Department Of Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribe Development Chhattisgarh, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4. The Collector (Scheduled Tribe Welfare Branch) District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. 5. The District Education Officer District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. 6. The Assistant Commissioner Tribal Welfare Department Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. 7. The Deputy Director Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Harish Khuntiya, Advocate. For State : Mr. Keshav Gupta, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 30 .06.2026 SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.07.02 17:33:34 +0530 2 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned note put in (Annexure P/1). 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to extend the benefits of regular pay scale in favour of petitioner under contingency fund upon completion of 3 years services from the date of initial appointment, with all consequential benefits and arrears of pay, in accordance with law. 10.3 That any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may be given.” 2. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Peon under the respondents pursuant to order dated 22.04.1993. Services of the petitioner were regularized in the year 2008. The State issued circulars extending benefits of regular pay scale to the daily wage employees upon completion of three years of service from date of initial appointment. 3. The petitioner had filed WPS No. 1845 of 2019 before the High Court seeking therein grant of regular pay scale after completion of three years and said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 25.03.2019 with a direction to the respondents to decide pending representation. 4. The petitioner made a representation before the District Education Officer and a recommendation was made by the said authority vide letter dated 15.04.2019 to extend benefit. The service book of the petitioner was sent to Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts and Pension, Raipur for verification, but said benefit was declined by the said authority. It was observed that the petitioner would be entitled to receive such benefit 3 after completion of five years of service from date of his initial appointment. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the matter of Rakesh Kumar Charmakar and Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., passed in SLP(C) No.8613-8614 of 2022 a direction has been issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court to extend such benefit. He would contend that as petitioner was appointed on 22.07.1993 after completion of three years of service, he became entitled to get benefit of regular pay scale. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that the period of three years mentioned for grant of benefit of regular pay scale has been extended to five years. He would submit that vide order dated 21.07.2022, the District Education Officer, Dhamtari has categorically opined that the said benefit can be extended to the petitioner after completion of five years of services from date of initial appointment. He would submit that the petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed on 22.07.1993 and completed three years of service on 22.07.1996. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rakesh Kumar Charmakar (supra) extended benefit of regular pay-scale. The relevant paragraphs 13, 14, 17 & 18 are read as under:- 4 “13. It is clear that all the nine appellants were appointed under an order issued by Deputy Director of Veterinary Sciences in compliance with direction and order of Collector, on the ground of recommendation of the Selection Committee constituted by Collector, against the vacant posts as part time sweepers at Collector's prescribed rates. The appointment orders make it clear that appellants were appointed on sanctioned and vacant posts although on temporary basis. Further, the appellants were appointed for posts reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes under Special Recruitment Drive. This contradicts the argument of the State that appellants were appointed on non- sanctioned posts, only for necessity of work. 14. On the issue of whether present Appellants are similarity situated as the petitioners in Ram Naresh Prajapati, we agree with the finding of Single Judge in its order dated 12.07.2019. The petitioners in Ram Naresh Prajapati were also appointed under Special Recruitment Drive, against the vacant posts, on temporary basis. The only factual distinction pointed out by the State and upheld by the Division Bench in the impugned order, is the subsequent appointment of those petitioners on sanctioned posts of Attendant, Bull-Attendant, Servant, etc. after the scrutiny by the Committee. The State in its Reply to the Writ Petition before High Court has itself stated that no such Screening Committee has been constituted to scrutinise the eligibility and qualification of the present appellants. The appellants however state that they are ready for such scrutiny if the State directs so. In our considered opinion, this factual difference is not enough to conclude that Appellants are differently situated from Ram Naresh Prajapati, because the appellants have sufficiently proven that they were employed on regular and sanctioned posts by their initial appointment orders. They are thus covered under Clause 6 of the Circular dated 10.05.1984 since they have completed three years after being employed as 'temporary' employees on Collector's wages, with recommendation of the District Level Recruitment Committee. It is thus clear that they fulfil all the conditions stipulated in the Circular to grant revised pay- scale. Their designation as 'part-time' sweepers does not 5 affect the validity of their appointment since they were appointed against sanctioned posts nevertheless. Appellants were thus appointed on regular posts even though they were temporary. The provisions of the 1979 Rules and Circular dated 10.05.1984 are both fulfilled by the appellants and thus they are entitled for regular pay- scale. The Division Bench of High Court erred in distinguishing the case of Ram Naresh Prajapati from the present appeals. 17. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that Division Bench erred in setting aside the judgement of the Single Judge of High Court dated 12.07.2019. The Single Judge rightly granted the benefit of regular pay-scale to the appellants. 18. We thus set aside the impugned order of Division Bench dated 02.12.2019 and uphold the order of Single Judge, allowing the writ petition extending the benefit of regular pay-scale to the Appellants.” 9. The representation was made by the petitioner pursuant to order passed in WPS No. 1845 of 2019, and thereafter, matter was forwarded to District Education Officer, Dhamtari. The said authority vide order dated 21.07.2022 held that benefit of regular pay scale can be extended to the petitioner after completion of five years of service from date of initial appointment. 10.Having considered the facts in the present case and observation made by the District Education Officer in its letter dated 21.07.2022, the matter is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to examine the matter and extend benefit of regular pay scale in accordance with letter dated 21.07.2022. 11. The entire exercise shall be completed by the respondent authorities within a period of 120 days. 6 12.With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant