1 / 4 2026:CGHC:12648 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2504 of 2026 Mathai Mathew, Retired Field Assistant, Water Resources Division Rajnandgaon, S/o C.M. Mathew, Aged About 73 Years, R/o Ward No. 5, Indira Nagar Dongargarh District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 491445. ... Petitioner versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Chief Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 492002 2 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, General Administration Department, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 492002 3 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 492002 4 - The Engineer In Chief Water Resources Department, Shivnath Bhawan, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 492002 5 - The Chief Engineer Water Resources Department, Mahanadi Godavari Basin, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ALFIZA BAIG Digitally signed by ALFIZA BAIG Date: 2026.03.18 11:55:56 +0530 2 / 4 6 - The Superintending Engineer Water Resources Department, Shivnath Circle-Durg, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. 7 - The Executive Engineer Water Resources Department, Division Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 8 - The Sub Division Officer Water Resources Department, Sub Division Dongargarh, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Pratik Modi, Advocate For State : Mr. Lav Sharma, Panel Lawyer S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 17.03.2026 1. Heard. 2. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 The Hon’ble Court may call for records from the respondents. 10.2 The Hon’ble Court may direct the respondents to grant the benefits of higher pay scale to the period of service of petitioner and revise the pension of the petitioner as per the gazette notification dated 14.10.1982. 10.3 The Hon’ble Court may direct the respondents to pay arrears of salary and pension to the petitioner. 10.4 The Hon’ble Court may direct the respondents to remove the anomaly in the service of the petitioner. 10.5 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/order/direction similar to the order passed on 09.06.2025 in WPS/3524/2025 directing the respondent authorities to consider and decide fresh representation in the light of gazette notification dated 14.10.1982 expeditiously preferably 3 / 4 within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a certified copy of this order. 10.6 The Hon’ble Court may grant cost of petition to the petitioner. 10.7 The Hon’ble Court may grant any other relief as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the present case in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits 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 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 petitioner for revision of his 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 petitioner was working as daily wage employee and subsequently, his service was regularized. 4. Learned counsel for State would submit that earlier the respondent/State had already considered the issue of the petitioner in the light of the judgment passed by State Administrative Tribunal, Gwalior Bench in Laxmi Narayan Upadhyay Vs. State of M.P., however he submits that if the petitioner file a fresh representation, the State will consider his case in light of the notification as mentioned herein above. 4 / 4 5. In view of the above submissions made by the parties, this petition is disposed of. If the petitioner 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. 6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands finally disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Alfiza