1 CGHC010134062026 2026:CGHC:33094-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 523 of 2026 Chandrashekhar Gaikwad S/o Yogiraj Gaikwad Aged About 72 Years R/o Budhapara, Near Hanuman Mandir, Raipur P.S. Budhapara, Tehsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director, Directorate of Health Services, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh. District- Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Syed Majid Ali, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge JUDGMENT ON BOARD Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 31 .0 7 .202 6 1. Heard Mr. Syed Majid Ali, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents on I.A. No. 01 of 2026, which is an application for condonation of delay of 23 days in preferring the instant appeal. 2. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 application, the same is allowed. Delay of 23 days in preferring the instant appeal is hereby condoned. 3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 4. By way of present writ appeal under Section 2 of Sub-Section (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act, 2006, the appellant / writ petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.01.2026 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No.1382 of 2015 (Chandrashekhar Gaikwad Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), by which the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/ appellant herein has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 5. Brief facts, necessary for disposal of this appeal, are that the appellant (original writ petitioner) filed the writ petition assailing the order dated 20.06.2013 passed by respondent No.2, whereby his representation seeking grant of the second time-bound pay scale was rejected. The appellant was initially appointed as Non- Medical Staff on 12.04.1977 and continued in service until his retirement in June, 2012. He was granted the first time-bound pay scale vide order dated 01.04.2010. Placing reliance upon the Finance Department Circular dated 28.04.2008 and the clarification dated 10.08.2009, the appellant claimed that, being a Class 'C' employee, he had completed more than 20 years of qualifying service and was therefore entitled to the second time- bound pay scale. His representation having been rejected, he 3 preferred the writ petition before this Court, being WPS No. 1382 of 2015, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge impugned order dated 19.01.2026. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the learned Single Judge has erred both on facts and in law in dismissing the writ petition and in upholding the order dated 20.06.2013 rejecting the appellant's claim for grant of the second time-bound pay scale. It is contended that the appellant was initially appointed on 12.04.1977 and had rendered long, continuous and unblemished service till his retirement in June, 2012. The appellant, being a Class 'C' employee, became entitled to the benefit of the second time-bound pay scale in terms of the Finance Department Circular dated 28.04.2008 read with the clarification dated 10.08.2009, which specifically provides that Class 'C' employees are entitled to the first and second time- bound pay scales on completion of 10 years and 20 years of service respectively. It is further submitted that once the appellant had already been granted the first time-bound pay scale vide order dated 01.04.2010 and had completed more than 20 years of qualifying service, there was no legal justification for denying him the second time-bound pay scale. Learned counsel would further argue that the authorities as well as the learned Single Judge have erroneously relied upon Clause 15 of the Finance Instructions dated 28.04.2008 to deny the benefit, although the said provision does not prohibit grant of the second time-bound 4 pay scale to the appellant. It is contended that the rejection of the appellant's representation is arbitrary, contrary to the Finance Department's circulars and clarifications, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is also submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches, as the appellant's claim pertains to fixation of pay and consequential retiral benefits, which constitutes a continuing cause of action, as such, it is prayed that the impugned judgment dated 19.01.2026 as well as the order dated 20.06.2013 be set aside and the appellant be held entitled to the second time-bound pay scale along with all consequential monetary and retiral benefits. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and submitted that the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of the second time- bound pay scale in view of Clause 15 of the Finance Instructions dated 28.04.2008, as he had already been granted the benefit of Kramonnati and his promotional post of Non-Medical Supervisor does not find place in Schedule-II appended to the said Instructions. It was further submitted that the clarification dated 10.08.2009 does not extend the benefit of the second time-bound pay scale to employees who had already availed the benefit of Kramonnati. It was also contended that the appellant raised his claim only after his retirement and, therefore, the writ petition was rightly held to be barred by delay and laches. Accordingly, it was 5 prayed that the appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and carefully gone through the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. 9. The principal contention of the appellant is that, being a Class 'C' employee who had completed more than 20 years of service, he became entitled to the second time-bound pay scale under the Finance Department Circular dated 28.04.2008 read with the clarification dated 10.08.2009. However, we are unable to accept the said contention. A plain reading of Clause 15 of the Finance Instructions dated 28.04.2008 makes it clear that in respect of employees who had already been granted the benefit of Kramonnati and whose posts were not included in Schedule-II, a separate decision was required to be taken by the Government regarding their entitlement to the benefit of the time-bound pay scale. Admittedly, no such decision has been brought on record by the appellant. 10. It is also not in dispute that the appellant had already been granted the benefit of Kramonnati and that the promotional post of Non-Medical Supervisor was not included in Schedule-II appended to the Finance Instructions dated 28.04.2008. The clarification dated 10.08.2009 merely explains the manner in which the time-bound pay scale is to be granted and does not confer the benefit upon employees falling within the category 6 contemplated under Clause 15. Therefore, the authorities committed no illegality in rejecting the appellant's representation. 11. Apart from the above, we find that the Finance Instructions and the clarification relied upon by the appellant were issued in the years 2008 and 2009 respectively, whereas the appellant retired from service in June, 2012. Despite having remained in service thereafter, he did not raise any grievance regarding denial of the second time-bound pay scale during his tenure. The representation was submitted only after his retirement in the year 2013 and the writ petition came to be filed in the year 2015 without any satisfactory explanation for the delay. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that the claim suffers from delay and laches. 12. Having considered the matter in its entirety, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has correctly appreciated the relevant Finance Instructions as well as the factual matrix of the case. We do not find any error of law or perversity in the impugned judgment warranting interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006. 13. Consequently, finding no merit in the present writ appeal, the same is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra