1 CGHC010299232026 2026:CGHC:34713 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5881 of 2026 1 - Sukhram Nishad S/o Mehattar Ram Nishad Aged About 73 Years R/o Guniyar Para P.O. Bagaoud, Tehsil Kurud, Dist. Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 2 - Dilip Kumar Rigri S/o Late Indal Singh Rigri Aged About 50 Years R/o Mahatma Gandhi Ward, Rudri Road, Dhamtari, Dist. Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 3 - Mohanlal Sharma S/o Kumar Prasad Sharma Aged About 67 Years R/o H. No. 242, Post Office, Dhamtari, Dist. Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 4 - Krishna Kumar Tripathi S/o Sheetal Prasad Tripathi Aged About 66 Years R/o Laxmi Nagar, Dawda Colony, Pachpedi Naka, Dist. Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Secretary, General Administration Department, Govt. Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Secretary, Department Of Public Health And Engineering Govt. SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2026.08.07 17:41:31 +0530 2 Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Secretary, Department Of Finance, Accounts And Treasury, Govt. Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Executive Engineer, Public Health And Engineering, Division Dhamtari, Dist. Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 6 - The Executive Engineer, Public Health And Engineering, Division Raipur, Dist. Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudhanshu Upadhyay, Advocate For Respondent/ State : Ms. Sakshi Bajpai, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 07/08/2026 Heard. 1. The petitioners have filled, this petition seeking the following reliefs:- “(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the present writ petition preferred by the petitioner and direct the respondent authorities to remove the anomaly occurred in the service of the petitioner. (ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent authorities to grant pay scale published in the gazette notification dated 14.10.1982. 3 (iii) Alternatively, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/order/direction similar to order passed in WPS No. 3945 of 2026 in case of Suresh Kumar Bagheland Others v. State of Chhattisgarh granting liberty to petitioner to file a fresh representation and further directing the respondent authorities to consider the same in light of gazette notification dated 14.10.1982. (iv) That any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and necessary in the interest of justice may kindly be awarded. (v) That. the Cost of the petition may kindly also be awarded to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that in similarly situated facts and the question of law, a batch of the writ petition, the leading case of which was Writ Petition (S) No. 2904 of 2005 [Dwarikadas Vaishnav & another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) and others] has been considered and decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.12.2012, in which, the petitioners, in those cases, have been granted liberty to file a fresh representation before competent authority, therefore, this petition may also be disposed of in light of that order directing the respondents-Competent Authority to consider the case of the petitioners for revision of their pay scale in accordance with the Notification dated 14.10.1992 (which was modified subsequently as 14.10.1982) issued by State of Madhya Pradesh, as the petitioners were earlier working as 4 daily wage employees and subsequently, their services were regularized. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents would submit that earlier the respondent/State had already considered the issue of the petitioners in the light of the judgment passed by State Administrative Tribunal, Gwalior Bench in Laxmi Narayan Upadhyay v. State of M.P., however, he submits that if the petitioners file a fresh representation, the State will consider their case in light of the notification as mentioned above. 4. In view of the above submissions made by the parties, this petition is disposed of. If the petitioners file a fresh representation before the competent authority, the same shall be considered and decided by the competent authority in light of the aforesaid notification expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a certified copy of this order. 5. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE $. Bhilwar