RAJKUMAR YADAV vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010332762026 2026:CGHC:38297

NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 6369 of 2026
1. Rajkumar Yadav S/o Late Shri Cheduram Yadav Aged About 63
Years Presently Retired From The Post Of Time Keeper, Office Of
Executive Engineer, R.E.S. Division Janjgir District Janjgir Champa
(C.G.)
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI
SHARMA
Date:
2026.09.01
10:51:47
+0530
JYOTI
SHARMA
2. Shivkumar Yadav S/o Shri S.P. Yadav, Aged About 60 Years
Occupation Service Presently Posted As Time Keeper, R.E.S.
Division Janjgir District Janjgir Champa (C.G.)
3. Bhuwneshwar Prasad Sahu S/o Late Jaitram Sahu, Aged About
61 Years Occupation Service Presently Posted As Time Keeper,
R.E.S. Division Janjgir District Janjgir Champa (C.G.)
4. Komal Prasad Sahu S/o Late Horilal Sahu, Aged About 60 Years
Occupation Service Presently Posted As Time Keeper, R.E.S.
Division Janjgir District Janjgir Champa (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of
Panchayat And Rural Development Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya,
Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District -Raipur (C.G.)
2. Engineer In Chief, Rural Engineering Severcies, Vikas Bhawan
Sector 19, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar District Raipur (C.G.)
3. Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Severcies, Vikas Bhawan
Sector 19, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar District Raipur (C.G.)
4. Superintendent Engineer, Rural Engineering Severcies, Bilaspur
District -Bilaspur (C.G.)
5. Executive Engineer, R.E.S. Division Janjgir, District -Janjgir
Champa (C.G.)

2
6. Joint Director, Accounts Treasury And Pension Bilaspur Division,
District -Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioners : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Advocate.
For Respondents/State : Ms. Apurva Nigam, Panel Lawyer.
Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Order on Board
31/08/2026
1. By the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for
following relief:-
“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
call for the records pertaining to the case of petitioners.
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
respondent writ/order/direction authorities to grant the
benefits of higher pay scale to the in-service
petitioners, revise the pension of the retired petitioners
as per the Gazette Notification dated 14/10/1982.
10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
issue writ/order/direction authorities to pay arrears of
salary and pension to the petitioners.
10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
issue to writ/order/direction the respondent authorities
to remove the anomaly occurred in the service of the
petitioners.
10.5 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
issue writ/order/direction similar to the order dated
17/07/2026 passed in WPS No. 5405 of 2026 directing
the respondent authorities to consider and decide the
fresh representation in the light of the gazette
notification dated 14.10.1982 expeditiously preferably
within a period of six months from the date of

3
receipt/production of a certified copy of this order.
10.6 Any other relief(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) in favor of
petitioners, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in
the interest of justice.
10.7 Cost of the petition.”
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted 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 the 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
the petitioners 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 petitioners were earlier working as daily wage
employee and subsequently, their services were regularized.
3.
Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents would
submit that earlier the respondent/State had already
considered the issue of the petitioners in the light of the
judgment passed by State Administrative Tribunal, Gwalior

4
Bench in Laxmi Narayan Upadhyay v. State of M.P. ,
however, he submits that if the petitioners file a fresh
representation, the State will consider their case in light of the
notification as mentioned herein above
4.
In view of the above submissions made by the parties, this
petition is disposed of. If the petitioners 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.
5. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of.
SD/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru)
Judge
Jyoti