1 2026:CGHC:12725 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1869 of 2021  Smt. Pushpalata Parichha W/o Philip Parichha Aged About 65 Years R/o B- 6 Om Zone Subham Bihar Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Women And Child Development Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Secretary, Department Of Tribal Development Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. The Director, Directorate Of Woman And Child Development Block (A) Indrawati Bhawan New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4. The District Program Officer Women And Child Development District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh 5. Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate For State : Mr. Rishabh Chandra Singh Deo, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 17.03 .2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the direct the respondent authorities to given the benefit of first kramonati Vetanman to the petitioner after completion of 12 years of service as per circular issued by the State Govt. 10.2 Any other relief or reliefs may also be SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.03.17 17:16:16 +0530 2 granted to the petitioner which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Mr. A.N. Pandey would submit that the petitioner got retired from the post of Upper Division Teacher on 31.08.2017. He would contend that the petitioner has not been extended benefit of upgraded pay scale on completion of 12 years of service. He would submit that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Upper Division Teacher on 29.11.1982 and completed 12 years of service on 29.11.1994, but during service tenure, he was not granted upgraded pay scale. He would submit that pursuant to circular dated 11.01.2010, the respondent authorities should have examined claim of the petitioner even after retirement. He would submit that the petitioner may be granted liberty to make a representation before the respondent No. 3, and in turn, the said authority may be directed to consider and decide it expeditiously in objective manner. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Deo would oppose. He would submit that the petitioner has no indefeasible right to claim upgraded pay scale. He would submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. The petitioner, who was Upper Division Teacher got retired from services on 31.08.2017. It is stated that though the petitioner completed 12 years of service, but he was not extended benefit of upgraded pay scale. Circular dated 11.01.2010 would reveal that claim of retired Government servant with regard to upgraded pay scale can be considered, thus, without making any observation on the merits of the case, the petition is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to make a representation before respondent No. 3, and in turn, the said authority is directed to decide the 3 representation expeditiously, preferably within a period of 120 days from date of its receipt, keeping in mind the circular dated 11.01.2010. 6. With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant