1 / 2 2026:CGHC:16302 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3133 of 2026 Yogesh Katailiha S/o Late Prem Chand Katailiha Aged About 48 Years Presently Working As Teacher (Lb) Pti, Govt. Higher Secondary School, Karhibazar, Block Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Secretary, Department Of Education, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Commissioner-Cum-Director, Directorate Of Panchayat, Atal Nagar Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, (C.G.) 5 - District Education Officer, Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate For Respondents : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Dy. G.A. HON'BLE SHRI PARTH PRATEEM SAHU, JUDGE ORDER ON BOARD 09.04.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to provide revised pay scale and arrears to the petitioner in the light of the order passed by the Hon'ble Court. 2 / 2 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate.” 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed in the year 2008. After completion of 8 years of service petitioner became entitled for the benefit of revised pay scale in the year 2016, however, petitioner was not extended the benefit from 2016, but only after absorption, benefit of revised pay scale has been extended to him. It is further contended that according to the decision of Mukesh Kumar Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh (WPS No. 2530 of 2017) decided on 26.11.2017, petitioner is also entitled for the arrears of the revised pay scale, from the date of his entitlement i.e. after completion of 8 years. He submits that petitioner may be permitted to submit fresh representation before the respondent authorities, and direction be issued to respondent No. 4 to consider and take decision on the representation, at the earliest, within specified time frame. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents/State submits that in view of the limited prayer made by the counsel for petitioner, he is having no objection. 4. On due consideration of the submission of counsel for the respective parties, writ petition at this stage is disposed of permitting the petitioner to submit a fresh representation before respondent No. 4 and if such a representation is submitted, the respondent No. 4 shall decide the same, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of representation, keeping in mind the decision of this Court in case of Mukesh Kumar Patel (supra). 5. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Saurabh JUDGE