1 CGHC010295442026 2026:CGHC:35450 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6064 of 2026 1 - Santosh Kumar Mishra S/o Rampal Mishra Aged About 63 Years R/o Bid Para Hatari World Distt- Raigarh C.G. State P I N 496001 2 - Fulchand Tiwari S/o Ram Rangile Tiwari Aged About 67 Years R/o H No. 227, Ward No. 3 Sanjay Maidan Baikunthpur Distt- Koriya C.G. State P I N 496001 3 - Omprakash Pandey S/o Yadav Prasad Pandey Aged About 67 Years R/o H No. 71 Suarpara, Tandapara, Kharsia Distt- Raigarh C.G. State P I N 496661 4 - Santosh Kumar Yadav S/o Maya Ram Yadav Aged About 56 Years R/o H No. 192 Bajrang Para Ward No. 14, Distt- Raigarh C.G. State P I N 496001 5 - Niman Xalxo S/o Prem Prakash Xalxo Aged About 57 Years Nayapara Jawahar Nagar, Ward No. 4 Distt- Raigarh C.G. State P I N 496001 SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2026.08.12 17:00:19 +0530 2 6 - Jivan Das Suryavanshi S/o Ponch Ram Suryavanshi Aged About 63 Years Purani Police Line Wireless Ke Peechhe , Ward No. 10 Distt- Jashpur C.G. State P I N 496331 7 - Kanhaiya Lal Sao S/o Ramesh Chandra Sao Aged About 71 Years R/o Dharmashala Gali Ward No. 10 Bilaigarh Distt- Bilaigarh Sarangarh C.G. State P I N 496445 8 - Mahavir Prasad Ejardar S/o Lal Gulal Ejardar Aged About 71 Years Block Colony Ward No. 2 Gharghoda Distt- Raigarh C.G. State P I N 496111 9 - Bhushan Prasad Sharma S/o Ramadhar Sharma Aged About 69 Years R/o Mishra Gali Ward No. 4, Baikunthpur, Distt- Koriya C.G. State P I N 496001 10 - Anita Thawait W/o Late Prem Prakash Thawait Aged About 62 Years Behar Para Ward No. 9 Sarangarh Distt- Sarangarh Bilaigarh C.G. State P I N 496445 11 - Bharatendu Pandey S/o Haldhar Prasad Pandey Aged About 73 Years R/o Radha Krishna Mandir Ke Saamne Kauwatalhardi Sarangarh Distt- Sarangarh Bilaigarh C.G. State P I N 496450 12 - Parmanand Pandey S/o Devdutt Pandey Aged About 64 Years Near B R C School Shikshak Nagar, Mungeli Distt- Mungeli C.G. State P I N 495334 3 13 - Pramod Kumar Upadhyay S/o Late Kanhaiya Lal Upadhayay Aged About 73 Years R/o Sattigudi Chowk Ward No. 16 Baikunthpur, Distt- Koriya C.G. State P I N 496001 14 - Chandra Shekhar Tiwari S/o Vishwanath Tiwari Aged About 72 Years R/o Kotara Road Distt- Raigarh C.G. State P I N 496001 15 - Manohar Prasad Choudhry S/o Jagdish Prasad Choudhry Aged About 70 Years R/o Ward No. 1, Gali No. 3 Rajiv Nagar Distt- Raigarh C.G. State P I N 496001 16 - Anand Bohidar S/o Late Sharda Prasad Bohidar Aged About 64 Years R/o Bohidarpara Ward No. 10 Nayaganj Distt- Raigarh C.G. State P I N 496001 17 - Prabhat Singh S/o Balwant Singh Aged About 61 Years R/o Bharat Kup Gali, Ward No. 15, Thakur Jagdish Singh Marg, Darogapara Distt- Raigarh C.G. State P I N 496001 18 - Dinesh Kumar Deota S/o Hari Bandhu Deota Aged About 70 Years R/o Rambhatha Rd. Ward No. 13, Baikunthpur Distt- Koriya C.G. State P I N 496001 19 - Vishal Kumar Yadav S/o Late Ashok Kumar Yadav Aged About 32 Years R/o Rajapara, Bagh Talab Distt- Raigarh C.G. State P I N 496001 4 20 - Ghanshyam Singh Thakur S/o Balbhadra Singh Thakur Aged About 66 Years R/o Ward No. 7, Indira Nagar, Distt- Raigarh C.G. State P I N 496001 21 - Punita Pandey W/o K.K. Pandey Aged About 60 Years R/o H.No. 53 Ward No. 16 Baikunthpur Distt- Koriya C.G. State P I N 496001 22 - Najma Khan W/o Asraf Khan Aged About 57 Years R/o Madhubanpara Ward No. 7 Faujdar Gali Distt- Raigarh C.G. State P I N 496001 23 - Ramayan Prasad Pandey S/o Ganesh Prasad Pandey Aged About 57 Years R/o H No. 12/62 Bidpara Distt- Raigarh C.G. State P I N 496001 24 - Mirza Salim Beg S/o Mirza Pir Beg Aged About 69 Years R/o Block Colony Ward No. 2 Gharghoda Distt- Raigarh C.G. State P I N 496111 25 - Kanhaiya Lal Hota S/o Sanatan Hota Aged About 60 Years R/o H.No. 32 Bidpara, Jaisingh Talab Ward No. 12 Distt- Raigarh C.G. State P I N 496001 26 - Raj Kumar Mishra S/o Satya Narayan Mishra Aged About 66 Years R/o Fathamuda, Bajhinpali Jutemill Ward No. 33, Distt- Raigarh C.G. State P I N 496001 5 27 - Dharmendra Kumar Pandey S/o Rajkumar Pandey Aged About 62 Years Near Lal Tanki Bohidarpara, Ward No. 12 Distt- Raigarh C.G. State P I N 496001 28 - Shamim Akhtar Ansari S/o Mohd. Jahoor Ansari Aged About 63 Years Ward No. 7, Near Ganga Ram Talab Indira Nagar, Raigarh Distt- Raigarh C.G. State P I N 496001 29 - Ramvati Patel W/o Rodan Singh Patel Aged About 57 Years R/o Sant Vinona Nagar, Ward No. 34 Raigarh Distt- Raigarh C.G. State P I N 496001 30 - Kunjilal Prajapati S/o Daulat Prasad Prajapati Aged About 63 Years R/o Near Govt. School Attarmuda, Prachi Vihar Raigarh Distt- Raigarh C.G. State P I N 496001 31 - Makbul Ali S/o Rabbul Ali Aged About 66 Years R/o H.No. 108, Hardiha Gali Rambhatta Ward No. 3 Distt- Raigarh C.G. State P I N 496001 32 - Punu Ram Dhrathlahare S/o Daroga Dhrathlahre Aged About 57 Years R/o H No. 460 Bajrangbali Mandir Kayaghat, Distt- Raigarh C.G. State P I N 496001 33 - Balendra Shekhar Pandey S/o Sita Prasad Pandey Aged About 65 Years H.No. 134/1, Marar Gali Near Ram Mandir Ward No. 13, Baikunthpur Distt- Koriya C.G. State P I N 496001 6 34 - Jaganarayan Mishra S/o Sundar Lal Mishra Aged About 68 Years R/o H.No. 217, Ward No. 15, Pailpara Sarangarh Distt- Sarangarh- Bilaigarh C.G. State P I N 496445 35 - Ram Babu Sharma S/o Salik Ram Sharma Aged About 71 Years C/o Puna Ram Dhilthhare H.No. 460 Bajrangbali Mandir Kayaghat Distt- Raigarh C.G. State P I N 496001 36 - Bhujeshwar Prasad Yadav S/o Jagdish Prasad Yadav Aged About 60 Years R/o Jila Karyalay Ke Paas Baikunthpur Distt- Koriya C.G. State P I N 497335 37 - Khir Prasad Tiwari S/o Charan Prasad Tiwari Aged About 66 Years R/o Bichpara Bichpara Chowk Godihari Distt- Raigarh C.G. State P I N 496445 38 - Indrajit Singh S/o Bakshi Singh Aged About 67 Years R/o Near Rest House Jhilmila, Saraipali, Distt- Mahasamund C.G. State P I N 493558 39 - Ramashray Singh S/o Ramrup Singh Aged About 62 Years R/o G- 12 I T I Colony, Chakradhar Nagar Distt- Raigarh C.G. State P I N 496001 40 - Khir Bai W/o Ashok Kumar Yadav Aged About 62 Years R/o Rambhatha Road, Bajrang Para, Near Bagalamukhi Mandir Distt- 7 Raigarh C.G. State P I N 496001 All Address Of Petitioner No. 1- 40 Are As Per Adhaar ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Transport Deptt. Secretariat Mahanadi Bhawan, Sector- 29 Naya Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur Distt- C.G. State 2 - The Secretary To Govt. C.G. Finance Department Secretariat Mahanadi Bhawan, Sector- 29 Naya Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur Distt- C.G. State 3 - The Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation (C I D C) For Short) Through Its Managing Director Shashtri Chowk, Raipur C.G. State -491001 P I N 492001 ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri K.R. Nair, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Aditya Tiwari, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 3 : Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Ashutosh Shrivastava, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Order on Board 12/08/2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners who were working under the Chhattisgarh 8 Infrastructure Development Corporation (CIDC) on various posts have challenged the decision taken by the State of Chhattisgarh dated 02.03.2012 whereby the employees have been denied the beneDt of revision of pay-scale from 01.01.2006 to 31.10.2011. He further submitted that the decision taken by the State is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Bihar State Beverages Corporation Limited and Others vs. Naresh Kumar Mishra and Others (2019) 5 SCC 110 and Union of India and Others, vs. Satya Brata Chowdhury and Others, (2008) 16 SCC 383. He also submitted that the beneDt of revision of the pay scale on the basis of the 6th pay commission report has not been implemented by the department. Thus, the petitioners sought a direction to the respondents to extend the beneDt of the 6th pay commission from 01.01.2006 to 31.10.2011. 2. On the other hand, the learned counsels for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners. They submitted that as per the letter dated 13.10.2011 decision has already been taken to extend the beneDt of the 6th pay commission to all the employees of the State Government as well as Corporate bodies etc. from 9 01.11.2011. They further submitted that the matter pertaining to the petitioners has already been forwarded to the State Government for necessary action and appropriate decision would be taken by the State. 3. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 4. In the matter of Bihar State Beverages Corporation Limited (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in paras 22 to 27 as under:- “22. At the outset, it is required to be noted that by impugned judgment and order the Division Bench of the High Court has directed the Appellant Corporation to grant the bene t of pay scale to the Respondents herein – original Writ Petitioners as per the 6th PRC, as per the decision of the Corporation itself in 2010. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has also quashed and set aside the resolution of the Corporation dated 27.3.2012, by which it was resolved to pay the salary to the employees of the Corporation as is being paid to the employees working in the parent organizations. 23. Now, so far as the quashing and setting aside the resolution dated 27.3.2012 by which the Corporation resolved to pay salary to the employees of the Corporation as is being paid in the parent Board/parent organization is concerned, it is required to be noted that it is not in dispute that the respective original Writ Petitioners are on deputation from di0erent Boards/ Organizations. Therefore, if the resolution dated 27.3.2012 is permitted to be implemented, in that case , there shall be disparity in 10 the pay scale/salary of the employees of the Corporation doing the same/similar work. There may be di0erent pay scales/salaries in the respective parent organizations. However, when they are working with the Corporation and doing the similar work, they have to be paid the salary which is paid to other employees doing the same/similar work. It is not in dispute that the employees working on di0erent posts in the Corporation are doing the same/similar work. Therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court has rightly applied the ‘Principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work’ and has rightly quashed and set aside the resolution dated 27.3.2012. 24. Challenge to the resolution dated 27.3.2012 is also required to be considered from another angle. At the time of advertisement and inviting the applications, the employees were o0ered the speci c pay scales against respective posts. It appears that the pay scale which was o0ered and thereafter paid by it till the resolution dated 27.3.2012 was at par with the pay scale paid to the Government employees as per the 5th PRC. Therefore, thereafter, to pay any salary/pay scale lesser than what was o0ered at the time of inviting the applications would be changing the conditions of service, which is not permissible. 25. Now, so far as the reliance placed upon Rule 282 and 283 of the Bihar Service Code by the Appellant Corporation is concerned, even on considering Rule 282 and 283 of the Bihar Service Code, it cannot be said that the person sent on deputation cannot be paid any more salary/emoluments than what was paid to the Government servant while working with the Government. Rule 283 reads as under: “Rule 283: (a) The pay which a Government servant is to receive in foreign service shall be precisely speci ed in the order sanctioning his transfer. If it is intended that he shall receive any remuneration, or enjoy any concession of pecuniary value, in addition to pay proper, the exact nature of such remuneration, or concession shall be similarly speci ed; and no 11 Government servant shall be permitted to receive any remuneration or to enjoy any concession which is not to be so speci ed. (b) In determining an appropriate rate of pay, the authority sanctioning a transfer to foreign service, shall take into account the value of any concessions which the Government servant may be permitted to enjoy, such as – (i) The payment by the foreign employer of contributing towards, leave salary and pension; (ii) the grant of free residential accommodation and any bene t or advantages connected therewith; and (iii) the grant of traveling allowance at special rates, and the use of tents, conveyances, animals etc., belonging to the foreign employer. (c) The terms granted to a Government servant who is transferred to foreign service shall not be so greatly in excess of remuneration which he would receive in Government service, as to render foreign service appreciably more attractive than Government service. (d) No order of transfer to foreign service shall be issued by the State Government without previous consultation with the Finance Department. (e) In cases where the power to sanction such transfer has been delegated to a subordinate authority, the initial pay of the Government servant transferred shall not, without the special orders of the State Government, exceed by more than 25 percent, the substantive pay last drawn by him in Government service and no concessions in addition to pay shall be sanctioned except the following: (i) the payment by the foreign employer of contributions towards leave salary and pensions; and (ii) the grant of travelling allowance on the scale prescribed in the Bihar Travelling Allowance Rules.” 26. On a fair reading of Rule 283(c) and Rule 283(e), it can be seen that it is permissible for the foreign 12 service to pay something more than what the employees were getting in the parent department. Therefore, the interpretation on behalf of the Corporation on reading Rule 283 that the employee sent on deputation to a foreign service has to be paid the same salary/pay scale which he was getting in the parent department, cannot be accepted. Therefore, reliance placed on Rule 282 and 283 of the Bihar Service Code while passing the resolution dated 27.3.2012 was absolutely either misplaced and/or on mis interpretation and, therefore, the same is rightly set aside by the High Court. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench in quashing the resolution dated 27.3.2012. 27. Now, so far as the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court directing the Appellant Corporation to grant pay scale to the Respondents herein, original Writ Petitioners as per the 6th PRC is concerned, it is required to be noted that, as such, the Appellant Corporation itself took a conscious decision in the year 2010 to grant the bene t of 6th PRC to the employees working with the Corporation. However, on the advice of the Finance Department that the Corporation may grant the bene t of 6th PRC to their permanent employees and not to the employees on deputation, the Corporation thereafter took a decision not to grant the bene t of the pay scale as per the 6th PRC. As rightly held by the Division Bench of the High Court, the advice by the Finance Department was nonapplication of mind, inasmuch so far as the Corporation is concerned, there is not a single employee appointed by the Corporation on permanent basis and the entire sta0 is either on deputation or on contract basis from other Boards/organizations. Therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court has rightly directed the Appellant Corporation to grant the pay scale to the Respondents – original Writ Petitioners as per the 6th PRC. However, at the same time, it is to be clari ed that they will get the pay scale as per the 6th PRC so long as they continue to work with the Appellant 13 Corporation and as and when they are repatriated, in that case, they shall be governed by the pay scale paid to the employees in the parent Board/Organization.” In the matter of Satya Brata Chowdhury (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in paras 18 to 21 as under:- “18. We may, at the outset, notice that the only contention raised by the appellant before the Tribunal, as also before the High Court, was that the recruitment Procedure in the Eastern Railway Administration was di0erent for the Time-keepers. It has been held not to be so. The judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 5.7.1991 in TA No.1585 of 1986 has been noticed by us. Therein, the Tribunal directed the workmen of the workshops at Liluah and elsewhere to be treated at par with their counterparts of Kharagpur, Banaras and Chittaranjan locomotive workshop. It was, therefore, impermissible for the appellant to treat the workers similarly situated, di0erently. They were to be treated as workers under the Factories Act. Only because some 14 overtime allowance became payable to them or a separate seniority list was maintained or a cadre for the said workers on workshop basis was constituted, the same by itself, in our opinion did not authorize the Eastern Railway Administration to discriminate the workers working in one workshop with the workers working in the other. 19. We may also notice that letter dated 13.7.2000 issued by the Chief Personnel Manager, Eastern Railways Administration; from a perusal whereof it appears that the claim of appellants that a di0erent recruitment rules existed for the Time-Keepers of di0erent workshops within the Eastern Railway Administration, is not correct. It has also been so found by the Tribunal as also by the High Court. 20. The contention of the learned Additional Solicitor General that the Time-Keepers recruited in the Liluah workshop could be treated di0erently from their counterparts at Jamalpur as in the said letter they were not treated as clerical grade sta0, also does not appear to be wholly correct. Appellants themselves 15 have annexed with their aHdavit a letter dated 16.6.2006 issued by the Assistant Personnel OHcer, Eastern Railway, Jamalpur to Chief Assistant OHcer, Eastern Railway, Kolkatta wherein it was stated : "As cadre/seniority of Time keeping sta0 is being maintained with General Group Clerks as such bene t of restructuring has been given to the time keeping sta0. The sta/ posted in Time O0ce and working as Time keepers are governed under Factories Act." 21. The Time keepers of Jamalpur Workshop, thus, have been treated as workers under the Factories Act and if they had been given the bene t of recommendations of the Fifth Pay Revision Commission, we fail to understand why the same bene t would be denied to the respondents herein.” 5. Though a decision has been taken vide letter dated 02.03.2012 by the State Government not to make payment of arrears of the revised pay-scale to the employees from 01.01.2006 to 16 31.10.2011, no reason has been assigned in this regard. The decision appears to be unreasonable, unfair, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 6. Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Bihar State Beverages Corpn. Ltd. (supra) and Satya Brata Chowdhury (supra) and considering the fact that the identical issue has already been considered and decided by this Court in WPS No.697/2013 and other connected matters by common order dated 11/07/2024 which has duly been aFrmed by the Division Bench in WA No.622/2024 decided on 30/09/2024, the present writ petitions are also disposed of in terms of para 7 of the order passed in WPS No.697/2013 and other connected matters. Para 7 of the said order is quoted below:- “7. As the Circular dated 02.03.2012 has already been quashed meaning thereby the petitioners would be entitled to get the beneDt of the 6th pay commission and other revisions of salary from 01.01.2006 till 31.10.2011. Thereafter, the State Authorities are directed to calculate the amount of arrears of salary of the petitioners and to make payment and decide the representation subject to veriDcation of the amount claimed by the 17 petitioners preferably within a period of 150 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order” 7. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are disposed of. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Shoaib