[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Ashok Kumar Nishad vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:14946-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WA No. 255 of 2026
1 - Ashok Kumar Nishad S/o Shri Prabhu Ram Nishad Aged About 52
Years Working As Head Master And Posted At Govt. Primary School,
Dhondra, Block Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
ROHIT
KUMAR
2 - Mirza Ishhaf Beg W/o Late Shri Mirza Sharik Beg Aged About 50
CHANDRA
Digitally
Years Working As Head Master And Posted At Govt. Primary School,
Doma, Block Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
signed by
ROHIT KUMAR
CHANDRA
3 - Rajesh Kumar Chaturvedani S/o Late Shri Shyam Lal Aged About 51
Years Working As Head Master And Posted At Govt. Boys Primary
School, Tamasivni, Block Abhanpur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh
4 - Kachru Ram Sahu S/o Thakur Ram Sahu Aged About 53 Years
Working As Head Master And Posted At Govt. Primary School,
Khandawa, Block Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
... Appellant
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Education,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar New Raipur District Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
2 - Director Directorate of Chhattisgarh Public Instruction, Indravati
Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Director Panchayat, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur,
District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
4 - Director Local Audit Fund, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya
Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
5 - Joint Director Local Audit Fund, Indravati Bhawan, Regional Office,
Near Ghadi Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
6 - District Education Officer Pension Bada Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh
2
7 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh
8 - Block Education Officer Block Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
9 - Ramesh Kumar Vishwakarma S/o Ramnath Vishwakarma Aged
About 48 Years Working As Head Master And Posted At Govt. Primary
School, Bendri, Block Abhanpur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellants : Mr. Govind Prasad Dewangan, Advocate
For Respondents/State : Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, Dy. Advocate General
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
01.04.2026
1. Heard Mr. Govind Prasad Dewangan, learned counsel for the
appellants as well as Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, learned Deputy
Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents on I.A.
No. 01/2026, which is an application for condonation of delay of
38 days in filing the instant appeal.
2. For the reasons mentioned in I.A. No.01/2026, the same is
allowed and delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is
heard finally.
4. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 28.11.2025
passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.3069/2023
(Ashok Kumar Nishad & Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh
others), whereby, the writ petition filed by writ petitioners /
appellants herein has been dismissed by the learned Single
Judge.
5. The brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioners were initially
appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III (now re-designated as
Assistant Teacher, Panchayat) in the years 1998 and 1999 under
the Panchayat Department, and upon completion of eight years of
service, they were absorbed into the School Education
Department as Assistant Teacher (LB) with effect from
01.07.2018. On 02.11.2011, the State Government issued a
circular providing that teachers who had not been granted
promotion and had completed ten years of service would be
entitled to the Kramonnati pay scale. In accordance with this
circular, the petitioners were extended the Kramonnati pay scale
of Rs. 4500-125-7000/-. Subsequently, on 01.05.2012, the State
Government issued another circular introducing a time-bound
pay-scale scheme for the Panchayat cadre, under which the
petitioners were granted the scale of Rs. 5000-150-20000/- plus a
teaching allowance of Rs. 2500/-. Thereafter, by circular dated
17.05.2013, the State Government revised the pay scales to be
granted on completion of eight years of service. Under the revised
structure, teachers in the Panchayat cadre drawing the scale of
Rs. 4500-125-7000/- became entitled to the scale of Rs. 9300-
34800/- with grade pay of Rs. 4200/-. However, despite being
eligible for the revised scale of Rs.9300-34800+4200, the
petitioners were instead granted the lower scale of Rs. 5200-
20200+2400/-, even though they were already receiving the scale
of Rs. 5000-150-20000/- under the earlier order dated
23.02.2013. Upon their absorption into the School Education
Department on 01.07.2018, the Last Pay Certificate forwarded by
the Panchayat Department reflected that the petitioners were
entitled to the revised scale of Rs. 9300-34800/- with a basic pay
of Rs. 14,850/-. However, the respondents have failed to extend
this scale and continue to grant only the lower scale of Rs. 5200-
20200+2400/-. The petitioners were promoted to the post of Head
Master (Primary School) in October 2022, after which they were
finally granted the scale of Rs. 9300-34800+4200/-. They now
claim that this pay scale should have been granted to them from
the date of their absorption, i.e., 01.07.2018, in accordance with
the LPC, along with consequential arrears. Earlier, the petitioners
had also approached this Court in WPS No. 1887/2014, wherein a
direction was issued for consideration of their representation;
however, the representation was rejected on erroneous grounds.
Despite submitting further representations, no action has been
taken by the authorities, compelling the petitioners to file the
another petition being WPS No. 3069 of 2023. The said writ
petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide
impugned order dated 28.11.2025. Being aggrieved by the same,
the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned
Single Judge has failed to appreciate the facts and legal position
of the case in their correct perspective, thereby rendering the
impugned order unsustainable in law. He further submitted that
the learned Single Judge did not properly consider that the
appellants, having initially been appointed as Shiksha Karmi
Grade-III and subsequently absorbed as Assistant Teacher (LB)
w.e.f. 01.07.2018, were already granted higher time-bound pay
scales under the applicable circulars issued by the State
Government from time to time. In particular, the entitlement of the
appellants to the revised pay scale of Rs. 9300-34800 with Grade
Pay of Rs. 4200/- pursuant to the circular dated 17.05.2013 has
been overlooked, despite the fact that they were already drawing
a higher pre-revised scale and their Last Pay Certificate clearly
reflected such entitlement with a basic pay of Rs. 14,850/-. He
also submitted that the learned Single Judge further erred in not
appreciating that the respondents arbitrarily downgraded the
appellants' pay to a lower scale of Rs. 5200-20200 with Grade
Pay of Rs. 2400/-, which is contrary to the settled principles
governing pay protection and revision. It is also submitted that the
subsequent grant of the higher pay scale upon promotion in
October 2022 itself substantiates the appellants' rightful
entitlement, which ought to have been recognized from the date of
absorption. The rejection of the appellants' representation has
been accepted without proper scrutiny, and the impugned order
fails to address the inconsistency between the LPC and the pay
actually granted. Thus, the impugned order suffers from non-
application of mind, misappreciation of material facts, and
erroneous interpretation of the governing circulars, and therefore
deserves to be set aside.
7. Per contra, learned State counsel submitted that the impugned
order passed by the learned Single Judge is well-reasoned,
lawful, and does not call for any interference. The learned Single
Judge has rightly appreciated the factual and legal aspects of the
case in their proper perspective and has correctly held that the
appellants are not entitled to the claimed pay scale from the date
of their absorption i.e. 01.07.2018. It is submitted that the grant of
pay scales to the appellants has been strictly in accordance with
the applicable circulars and service rules governing the
Panchayat and School Education Departments. The appellants
were extended the benefits as per their eligibility under the time-
bound pay-scale scheme, and there has been no arbitrary or
illegal reduction in their pay. The reliance placed on the Last Pay
Certificate is misconceived, as the same cannot override the
statutory provisions and applicable government instructions
governing fixation of pay upon absorption. It is further submitted
that the appellants' claim for grant of the higher pay scale of Rs.
9300-34800 with Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- from 01.07.2018 is
untenable, as such scale became admissible to them only upon
their promotion to the post of Head Master in October 2022, and
not prior thereto. The appellants have failed to establish any
vested right to claim the said scale from an earlier date. The
rejection of their representation was done after due consideration
and in accordance with law, and no arbitrariness or illegality can
be attributed to the action of the respondents. The learned Single
Judge has rightly declined to interfere in the matter, as no
enforceable legal right of the appellants has been infringed.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of
the material available on record, this Court finds no infirmity or
illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Single
Judge. The learned Single Judge has duly considered the factual
matrix as well as the applicable circulars governing the field and
has rightly concluded that the appellants are not entitled to the
claimed pay scale of Rs. 9300-34800 with Grade Pay of Rs.
4200/- from the date of their absorption i.e. 01.07.2018. The
reliance placed by the appellants on the Last Pay Certificate is
misplaced, as the same cannot confer any enforceable right
contrary to the governing rules and policy decisions of the State.
The material on record indicates that the appellants were granted
the appropriate pay scale in accordance with their eligibility, and
the higher scale was rightly extended only upon their promotion to
the post of Head Master in October 2022.
10. This Court is of the considered opinion that the appellants have
failed to demonstrate any arbitrariness, illegality, or perversity in
the decision-making process or in the findings recorded by the
learned Single Judge warranting interference in the present
appeal. The grounds raised are essentially a reiteration of
submissions already considered and rejected, and do not make
out a case for appellate interference.
11. Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. No
order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Chandra
