1 / 5 2026:CGHC:8031 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1702 of 2026 Dr. Mamta Garg W/o Dr. Vrishbhan Kumar Garg, Aged About 60 Years R/o Vidya Nagar (Sector 1) Datta Colony, Ambedkar Chowk (Banaras Chowk) Ambikapur C.G. Presently Posted As Assistant Professor- History At Rajiv Gandhi Government University, Ambikapur C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary To The Government Of Chhattisgarh, Secretariat, Department Of Higher Education, Mahanadi Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Commissioner, Department Of Higher Education, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Block-3, Indravati Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 3 - The Regional Additional Director Higher Education, Ambikapur Division, District Sarguja C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents : Ms. Deeksha Gauraha, Govt. Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2026.02.16 10:59:50 +0530 2 / 5 13/02/2026 1. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that this case is covered with the decision of coordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No. 3811 of 2024 passed on 13.02.2025 and therefore similar order may be passed in this case also. 2. Submission made by learned counsel for petitioner is not opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent-State. 3. With the consent of the parties, case is heard finally. 4. The petitioner is aggrieved by inaction on the part of the respondents in not extending her the benefit of counting of services from the date of initial appointment for the purpose of conferral of monetary benefits including annual increment, senior grade pay scale, selection grade pay scale and benefit of pay band IV by taking into account the services rendered by her as emergency appointees before being allegedly regularized by the Respondents on the post of Assistant Professor in respective subject whereas the similar controversy has been resolved earlier by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur in the case of Dr. Ramesh Chandra Dixit v. State of MP and others, [2012 (3) MPHT 86], as affirmed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur in the case of State of MP and others v. Dr. Ramesh Chandra Dixit and others [2013 (IV) MPJR 123] and further affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.30492/2013 decided on 18.02.2015 and further re-affirmed in the Review Petition (Civil) No.1348/2015 decided on 13.05.2015. Not only this, even this Court in the case of Dr. Phool Das Mahant v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others [WPS No.785/2015, decided on 22.9.2015] 3 / 5 as affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 509/2016, decided on 18.4.2017 and further by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) - Diary No. 1507/2020, decided on 27.1.2020 as also in RP No. 1233/2020, decided on 14.7.2020. Moreover, the similar controversy has also been resolved in the case of Dr. Deepak Kumar Shukla and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others [WPS No. 8375/2018, decided on 06.01.2023] read with REVP No. 16/2023, decided on 09.02.2023 and as affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 254/2023, decided on 07.07.2023 and further by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 21126/2023, decided on 28.11.2023. Hence, this petition. 5. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs. “(a) to call for the relevant records of the case from the respondents; (b) to command the respondents to grant the petitioner benefit of annual increments, senior grade pay scale, selection grade pay scale and benefit of Pay Band-IV i.e. by counting her services from the date of her initial appointment on emergency basis and to re-fix the pay of the petitioner accordingly and to release arrears thereof along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum by a writ of MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, (c) to allow this petition with costs, (d) to pass such other order(s) as may be deemed appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case, to grant relief to the petitioner.” 4 / 5 6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the similar controversy has already been resolved by this Court in the case of Dr. Deepak Kumar Shukla and others v. State of Chhattisgarh and others [WPS No. 8375/2018, decided on 06.01.2023] read with REVP No. 16/2023, decided on 9.2.2023 and as affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 254/2023, decided on 7.7.2023 and further by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 21126/2023, decided on 28.11.2023. Hence, the present petitioner is also entitled to get the similar benefit as extended by the judgment in Dr. Deepak Kumar Shukla (supra). 7. I have heard the arguments raised on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 8. In view of the discussion made hereinabove and considering the entire facts of the case and the material on record, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to examine the case of petitioner after adding her past service appointed on emergency basis for the purpose of conferral of monetary benefits including senior grade pay scale, selection grade pay scale and benefit of pay band IV by taking into account the services rendered by her as emergency appointees and if the petitioner fulfills all the requisite conditions which are required for the purpose of conferral of monetary benefits as claimed by the petitioner then the petitioner is also entitled for the monetary benefits as claimed by her as per the policy/circular issued by the State Government as well as by the University Grants Commission from time to time. Let this exercise be completed within four months. If petitioner is also found entitled and eligible for the said benefit the said benefits shall be payable to the petitioner within further 5 / 5 two months from the date of decision that petitioner is also entitled for the same. 9. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merit of case of petitioner regarding her entitlement to get the aforesaid monetary benefits. This Court has only examined whether the past services of the petitioner on emergency basis is required to be added or not for grant of the aforesaid monetary benefits. It is further directed that after adding the past service, if the petitioner is found eligible for grant of the aforesaid monetary benefits, the difference of arrears be paid to her within a further period of two months from the date of taking final decision over grant of the monetary benefits. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen