1 / 3 2026:CGHC:7546 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1668 of 2026 • Smt. Kiran Awasthi W/o Arun Kumar Awasthi Aged About 67 Years R/o 27 Kholi Vikash Nagar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Commissioner Higher Education Govt. Of Chhattisgarh Indiravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Abhinav Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 11/02/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs. “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records related to the case of the petitioner from the possession of respondents for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court by issuing an appropriate writ directs the respondents to fix the pension and gratuity as per revised pay scale applicable on the date of retirement of the petitioner including arrears from the date of retirement of the petitioner as per the revised pay scale. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court by issuing appropriate writ direct the respondent state authorities to extend similar benefits as has been extended to the employees of government colleges as per 7th pay PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA Date: 2026.02.12 10:43:15 +0530 2 / 3 commission within shortest possible time as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court looking to the old age of the petitioner. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief/relief's in favor of the petitioner, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the issue involved in this writ petition is no longer res integra in the light of the order passed by Division Bench of this Court in WA No. 111/2022 (State of Chhattisgarh and others vs. Dr. C.K. Tiwari and another) and other connected writ petitions. He submits that similarly situated persons have filed various writ petition before this Court and the relief claimed in those writ petition are same as in this writ petition. 3. Learned Single Judge of this Court in WPS No. 417/2005 and other connected matters allowed the writ petitions filed by the similarly situated persons and granted the reliefs so claimed. Against that order, the State Government preferred bunch of writ appeals as stated above. The order of the single judge has been upheld by the Division Bench and the Writ Appeals filed by the State Government were dismissed. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to make representation to the authority concerned which may be decided in the light of the judgment passed in WA No. 111/2022 and other connected appeals arising out of the order passed in WPS No. 407/2005 and others. 4. Learned State counsel appearing for the State does not dispute that the issue involved in these petitions has been decided by the Division Bench of this Court. He however submits that against the order dated 25.08.2023 passed in WA No. 111/2022 and other connected appeals the State is in the process of challenging the same before the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition and therefore he submits until and unless some order is 3 / 3 passed by the Supreme Court, it cannot be said that the case of the petitioners is squarely covered with the order passed in the Writ Appeals arising out of the WPS 407/2005 and other connected petitions. 5. Be that as it may, as the issue involved in this petition has already been decided by the Division Bench of this Court and the reliefs claimed in this petition have already been granted to the similarly situated persons in those cases, and the appeal has also been dismissed. Therefore, instead of keeping this petition pending, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be served if this petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to make representation along with copy of the orders passed in WA Nos. 111/2022 and in WPS No. 407/2005 to respondents No. 1 and 2 and in turn concerned authorities are expected to decide the same within a further period of 120 days from the date on which such representation is presented before them. Needless to say, this order would be subject to order passed by the Supreme Court. 6. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) pwn JUDGE