1 CGHC010304902022 2026:CGHC:29009 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6045 of 2022 * - Shrawan Kumar Mishra, S/o Shri Ram Manohar Mishra, aged about 63 years, Peon (retired) at Director of Animal Husbandary, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) R/o Village Majhiyar, Post Office – Ratangawan, Tehsil- Mauganj, District Rewa (M.P.) ... Petitioner Versus 1 – State of Chhattisgarh, through its Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandary, Veterinary Services & Dairy Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 2 – The Director, Office of Directorate Veterinary Services Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ritesh Giri, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 10/07/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.A That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the memo/ Communication / letter dated 07-04-2022 issued by the respondent No. 2 Director of Veterinary Services Raipur C.G. by with the representation of the petitioner has been rejected. 10.B That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to grant regular pay scale on completion of 3 years of service on collector rate w.e.f. 16.11.1989 as per circular issued by the State Government at par with the similarly placed employees who have been granted pay scale on completion of their 3 years of service on collector rate and further directed to pay the arrears of salary after fixation of said pay scale. Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.07.14 11:21:51 +0530 2 10.C That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to pay the amount of gratuity and pension and other retiral dues including the amount of leave encashment after granting regular pay scale w.e.f. 16.1.1989 i.e. on completion of 3 years of service. 10.D That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to immediately release the unpaid retiral dues i.e. amount of gratuity and pension with interest. 10.E That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to release the entire amount of leave encashment of 300 days which has been credited in the leave account of the petitioner. 10.F Any other relief as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court.” 2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as daily wages employee on collector rate vide order dated 16.11.1986. The petitioner completed 03 years of services on 16.11.1989. Pursuant to circulars issued by the State Government dated 22.11.1988 and 06.04.1999, the respondent No. 2 vide its order dated 10.02.2004 regularized the services of the petitioner in regular establishment on the post of Peon / Chowkidar in the pay scale of Rs.2550-55-2660- 3200. The petitioner and 03 similarly situated employees namely Gayaram Verma, Arjun Verma and Dropati Verma had preferred WPS No. 206/2022 before the High Court and sought relief to make a representation before the respondent No. 2 for grant of regular pay scale on completion of 03 years of services with effect from 16.11.1989. The said writ petition was disposed of on 17.01.2022 and the petitioners were granted liberty to make representation before respondent No. 2 and in turn, the said authority was directed to decide it within a period of 45 days. The petitioner and other 03 employees submitted representation before the respondent No. 2 which has been rejected vide order dated 07.04.2022. 3 3. Mr. Ritesh Giri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that similarly situated employees namely Chain Singh Dhruw has been extended benefit of regular pay scale from date of initial appointment vide order dated 26.08.2021 and said order has been placed as Document-A along with an application for taking additional document on record. He would submit that action on the part of the respondents is arbitrary and discriminatory. He would pray to allow this petition. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Anmol Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents appearing for the State/respondents would oppose. He would submit that the services of the petitioner were absorbed vide order dated 10.02.2004 and benefit of regular pay scale was extended from the said date. He would contend that the petitioner has already attained age of superannuation and got retired from services on 31.12.2021 and admissible retiral dues have already been paid. He would contend that the petitioner has claimed benefit of regular pay scale w.e.f. 16.11.1989 after 35 years without explaining delay, and therefore petition deserves to dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as daily wages employee on collector rate vide order dated 16.11.1986. His services were regularized w.e.f. 10.02.2004 and from said date he was extended benefit of regular pay scale. The petitioner accepted the said benefit without any protest and got retired from services on account of superannuation on 31.12.2021. The petitioner has filed this writ petition claiming therein regular pay scale from 16.11.1989 on 16.09.2022 and 4 in Para- 7 of this writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner made numerous representations before the respondent authorities, but only representation dated 27.01.2022 has been placed on record. Thus, it can be held that the petitioner failed to explain cause of delay. 7. With regard to benefits extended to another similarly situated employee, as argued by learned counsel for the petitioner, the Annexure – Document-A dated 26.08.2021 would show that Chain Singh Dhruw was appointed on 25.07.1997 on regular pay scale. In said order, it is nowhere mentioned that Chain Singh Dhruw ever worked as daily wages employee on collector rate and after completion of 03 years of services, his services were regularized. 8. With regard to claim parity, the petitioner has not annexed a copy of order of appointment of said Chain Singh Dhruw or order of regularization of services, therefore, no claim based on parity is made out. Thus, the contention with regard to arbitrary and discriminatory action on the part of State authorities is also not made out. 9. Having considered the above discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere. Accordingly, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed at admission stage. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti