Chattisgarh High Court

Yogendra Kumar Maravi vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 19 June, 2024

      Neutral Citation
      2024:CGHC:20417




                                      1

                                                                       NAFR
           HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                     Order Reserved on 01.05.2024
                     Order Delivered on 19.06.2024
                         WPS No. 3383 of 2019
   • Yogendra Kumar Maravi S/o. Late Shri B.S. Maravi aged about 55
     years occupation- subedar (m)/Head Clerk, under the office of 13
     BN, CAF, Bango, district- Korba, chhattisgarh
                                                             ---- Petitioner
                                 Versus
   1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secreatary, Home And Police
      Affairs And Finance, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralay, Atal
      Nagar, Disrtict- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
   2. Director General Of Police Police Head Quarter, Atal Nagar,
      District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
   3. The Commandant          13BN,       CAF,   Bango,    District-   Korba,
      Chhattisgarh.
   4. Deputy Director Treasury, Account And Pension, Bilaspur, District-
      Bilaspur, Chhattisgrah
                                                          ---- Respondents

For Petitioner                  : Shri Prakash Tiwari, Advocate
For Respondent /State           : Ms. Pragya Pandey, Dy.GA


              Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma
                               C A V Order

Challenge in this petition is to the legality and validity of the order

dated 12.04.2019 (Annexure P/3) issued by the respondent No.3

whereby despite the sanction of pay benefits by the High Power

Committee as directed by this Court in WPS No. 532 of 2016 vide order

dated 19.02.2016 in favour of the petitioner and other similarly situated

petitioners, the respondent No.3 had reduced the sanctioned pay scale

from Rs. 4400/- to Rs. 4200/- of the petitioner holding that he was not Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:20417

entitled to get the benefit of time scale pay.

2. This is the third round of litigation by the petitioner. The facts, in

brief, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner was working as

Subedar (M)/Head Clerk in the Office of respondent No.3. The finance

department of the State, vide its notifications dated 28.04.2008 and

10.08.2009 granted the benefit of Time Scale Pay to all the civil servants

working in the State. By virtue of the said notification, the benefit of first

Time Scale Pay has been granted to those employees who have

completed ten years of their qualifying services and in the same manner,

the benefit of second Time Scale Pay was also considered of those

employees who have competed their 20 years of service. According to

the said notification, benefit of Time Scale Pay was considered with

effect form 01.04.2006. In view of the notification dated 24.08.2008

(Annexure P-2) the petitioner was well within the zone of consideration

for grant of Time Scale Pay but despite making all efforts, the petitioner

was deprived of the said benefit. Therefore being aggrieved by the

same, the petitioner instituted a writ petition bearing WPS No. 532 of

2016 before this Court and vide order dated 19.02.2016 and the petition

was disposed of in term of the order passed in WPS No. 6698 of 2014

dated 24.12.2014, with liberty to the petitioner to file representation

before respondent No.3 who shall consider the claim of the petitioner for

grant of Time Scale Pay promotion in accordance with the Government

Policy dated 10th August 2009 and other applicable policies in the matter.

It is further stated that if the representation is filed by the petitioner, the

same shall be considered and decided by the respondent No.3 within a

period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the said order.

Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:20417

3. In compliance of the said order, the respondent No.2 issued an

order on 31.05.2016 to the respondent No.3 for granting benefit of Time

Scale Pay in favour of the petitioner. The respondent No.3 issued the

order dated 21.10.2016 and sanctioned the Time Scale Pay and

amended/revised the pay scale of the petitioner from grade pay of Rs.

4200/- to Rs. 4400/- w.e.f. 20.01.2007. Prior to the issuance of this order,

the respondent No. 3 had also issued order dated 21.09.2016 and the

benefit of Time Scale Pay is given to the petitioner as he belongs to the

ministerial cadre of home police department and his substantive post is

Assistant Sub Inspector (M) which is the post of direct recruitment. After

granting the benefit of Time Scale Pay, the respondent No.3 issued

official memo dated 18.01.2018 (Annexure P-8) to the office of

respondent No.4 for providing the service book of the petitioner and

similarly placed other petitioners for verification and endorsement in

service record. The respondent No.4 verified the service books of all the

employees except that of the petitioner, regarding the Time Scale Pay as

sanctioned by the respondent No.2 & 3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner

filed a writ petition bearing WPS No. 142 of 2019 before this Court and

vide order dated 10.01.2019, the petition was disposed of with a

direction to the respondent N0. 2 & 4 to finalize the claim of the petitioner

at the earliest preferably within a period of three months from today and

in case, if the petitioner is entitled for the benefits as has been claimed,

the same may also be released forthwith.

4. In consequence to the above, the respondent No.3 vide impugned

order (Annexure P/1) has reduced the sanctioned pay scale of Rs.

4400/- to Rs. 4200/- holding that during verification, the respondent No.4 Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:20417

has raised objection that the Time Scale Pay would be given to those

employees who belong to the post of direct recruitment whereas the

petitioner does not belong to the post of direct recruitment. It is this order

against which the petitioner has come before this Court.

5. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned

order dated 12.04.2019 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondent No.3 is

arbitrary, illegal and against the order passed by this Court as well as the

superior authority. He further contends that on 19.02.2016, it was

directed to the respondents authorities to provide the Time Scale Pay in

terms of order dated 24.12.2014 in WPS No. 6698 of 2014 (Rammani

Tripathi Vs. State of CG and Others). He submits that though the

respondent No.2 has already sanctioned and directed the authorities to

disburse the pay benefits including the Time Scale Pay but neither entry

was made in his service book nor the pay benefits were given to the

petitioner and instead of that the respondent No.3 has issued the order

impugned reducing the pay scale of the petitioner from Rs. 4400/- to Rs.

4200/-. Therefore, counsel for the petitioner prayed that appropriate writ

be issued against the respondents for granting the pay benefits including

the Time Scale Pay.

6. The respondent-State has filed its return stating inter alia that the

petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Sub Inspector (Ministerial)

vide order dated 06.05.1989 in the pay scale of Rs. 870-1420/- and the

post was equivalent to Assistant Grade-III. As there was a Pay Revision

Rules, 1983 ie. Chowdhary Pay Commission, where there was some

dispute for providing ad hoc increments w.e.f. 01.04.1981 and the State

Government of Madhya Pradesh had passed an order on 28.08.2000 Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:20417

thereby granting the aforesaid pay scale to the ministerial employees of

the Police Department on the basis of Rule 7(1)(b)(iv) of Pay Revision

Rules,1983. This order was withdrawn after a month which was

challenged before the State Administrative Tribunal as well as the High

Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur and later on the petitions were

allowed in favour of the employees. Consequently, the State of Madhya

Pradesh has provided the benefit of Chowdhary Pay Commission w.e.f.

12.05.2005. Subsequently, the State of Chhattisgarh has also passed

the order on 04.07.2005 by granting similar benefits to the employees of

the ministerial staff posted in the State of Chhattisgarh as per the Pay

Revision Rules, 1983. However, it was brought to the notice of the

authorities that the ministerial cadre staffs were being granted upgraded

Higher Pay Scale in place of fixing ad hoc increment therefore, the same

was withdrawn vide order dated 29.07.2006 and it was directed to revise

the same in accordance with the aforesaid Pay Revision Rules. This

order was challenged before this Court and it was finally allowed vide

order dated 23.02.2011 whereby it was directed that no recovery shall be

made from the employees who had been granted the benefit. This was

maintained by the Division Bench ad well as by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court.

7. It is contended by the State counsel that the petitioner was

appointed as per the Pay Revision Rules,1983 as initially the pay scale

of the ministerial staff of police department was revised w.e.f. 01.04.1981

and accordingly, their pay scales were also revised. It is contended that

the State Government has issued a circular dated 28.04.2008 wherein it

has issued a circular dated 28.04.2008 and 10.08.2009 granting two Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:20417

higher pay scales to the employees of the State of Chhattisgarh who are

directly recruited/posted after completion of 10 years and 20 years of

their qualifying service as provided in clause 3 of the circular. State

counsel further contends that as per the circular dated 28.04.2008 along

with Schedule 1, the pay scale of ASI-M w.e.f. 01.01.2006 was Rs.

5,200-20,200+2400/- (Grade Pay), and accordingly, the first higher pay

scale would be Rs. 5200-20200+2800/-(Grade pay) and second higher

pay scale of Rs. 9300-34800/- Rs. 4200/-(Grade Pay). Thereafter

instructions were issued by the Finance Department dated 28.05.2016

stating that the employees of ministerial staff who have been appointed

through direct recruitment would be provided the revised pay scale as

per the Schedule 1 of the instructions of finance Department. Since the

petitioner has been provided higher pay scale personally as per the

order of this Court, he would be entitled for two higher pay scales in

accordance with the aforesaid circular. She submits that the petitioner is

not entitled for Time Scale pay @ 9300-34,800/- +Rs. 4200/- (Grade

Pay) and the Police Headquarter, Naya Raipur had issued a circular

dated 30.05.206 to this effect and vide order dated 21.10.2016, it has

been communicated to the office of Divisional Joint Director, Treasury,

Accounts and Pension, Bilaspur (CG) for verification of the aforesaid

fixation vide communication dated 24.01.2019. The Divisional Joint

Director, Treasury, Accounts and Pension, Bilaspur (CG) vide order

dated 25.02.2019 (Annexure R/3), the petitioner was initially appointed

as ASI-M as a direct recruitee, therefore he would be entitled for two

Time Scale Pay and further observed that the pay scale of the post of

ASI-M would be 1900/- Grade Pay but the petitioner has been granted Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:20417

Higher Scale Pay of Rs. 5200-20,200+2400/- Grade Pay as per the

direction of Hon'ble High Court therefore as per the instructions from the

finance department, the petitioner would be entitled for the first revised

pay scale at Grade Pay of Rs. 5200-20200-2800 Grade Pay and second

higher pay scale after completion of 20 years of service the high scale

pay of Rs. 9300-34800+4200/- Grade Pay would be granted and is not

entitled for Grade Pay of Rs. 9300-34,800+4400/- Grade Pay for first

higher pay Scale. Lastly, he submits that since the petitioner has been

granted the Higher Pay Scale on account of promotions, he would not

get any actual benefit of the aforesaid scheme and thus, there is no

illegality or infirmity on the part of the answering respondents and

therefore the writ petition being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the

rival submissions made therein and also gone through the documents

with utmost circumspection.

9. The sole question to be considered is whether the petitioner is

entitled for Time Scale Pay? In the instant case, it is undisputed that the

petitioner was appointed on the post of ASI-M and since he has already

been accrued the higher pay scale on account of his promotions and

therefore he cannot claim for grant of benefit of time pay scale. The

Divisional Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts and Pension, Bilaspur (CG)

vide order dated 25.02.2019 (Annexure R/3) has observed as under:

ÞJh ejkoh dh fu;qfDr fnukad 06-05-1989 dks lgk;d mi fujh{kd ¼,e½@fuEu Js.kh fyfid esa gqbZ gS tks ßlh/kh HkrhZ dk laoxZÞ gSA ftlesa 25% in prqFkZ Js.kh ls inksUufr }kjk ,oa 'ks"k in lh/kh HkrhZ }kjk iwfrZ dh tkrh gSA rRi'pkr~ mudh inksUufr fnukad 20-01-1997 dks mi fujh{kd ¼,e½@mPp Js.kh fyfid ds in ij gqbZ gS tks 'kr izfr'kr inksUufr dk in gSA dkykarj esa Jh Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:20417

ejkoh dh dze'k% inksUufr fnukad 19-12-2000 dks lwcsnkj ¼,e½@ys[kkiky rFkk fnukas 28-05-2008 dks lwcsnkj ¼,e½@eq[; fyfid ds in ij gqbZ mDr lHkh in Hkh 'kr izfr'kr inksUufr ds laoxZ gSA vr,o Li"V gS fd foRr foHkkx dk ifji= fnukad 28-04-2008 ds fcUnq dzekad 03 vuqlkj 10 o"kZ ,oa 20 o"kZ dh lsok iw.kZ djus ij le;eku osrueku dh x.kuk lh/kh HkrhZ ds laoxZ Þlgk;d mi fujh{kd ¼,e½ @fuEu Js.kh fyfid ds lanHkZ esa gh ns; gSA

xxx xxxx xxxx xxx

mijksDr foospu ls ;g Li"V gS fd Jh ejkoh dks lh/kh HkrhZ ds laoxZ lgk;d mi fujh{kd ¼,e½@fuEu Js.kh fyfid esa fu;qfDr fnukad 01-04-2006 la izHkko'khy le;eku osrueku ;kstukarxZr 10@20 o"kZ dh lsok iw.kZ djus ij izFke mPprj osrueku xzsM osru #i;s 2800 ,oa f}rh; mPprj osrueku xzsM osru #i;s 4200 dh ik=rk gS rFkk izFke mPprj osrueku xzsM osru #i;s 4400 dh ik=rk ugha gSAß

10. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the

petitioner is not entitled to any such benefit as sought and prayed by

him. In the earlier two rounds of litigation, ie. once, the petition was

disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to file representation to

the petitioner and for deciding the same by the concerned authority in

accordance with law and in the second round of litigation, the petition

was disposed of with direction to the respondents authorities to finalize

the claim of the petitioner at the earliest. This is the third round of

litigation. Once if the representation was duly considered, unless a

material, with strong reasons, is produced, and a strong case is made

out, the same cannot be disbelieved lightly, except in those cases, where

conclusion or decision is arbitrary. Thus, I do not find any infirmity in a