KISHORE PATIL vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010330052026 2026:CGHC:38584
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 6339 of 2026
1. Kishore Patil S/o Late Shiv Shankar Patil Aged About 70 Years R/o
House No. 156/58 Near C.S.E.B. Office, College Ward Danganiya,
Thana D D Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. Surendra Sharma S/o Late Sundar Lal Sharma Aged About 67 Years
JYOTI
SHARMA
R/o House No. 30/94, Brahamanpara, Way Of Dr. Karona Panday,
Digitally signed by
JYOTI SHARMA
Date: 2026.09.02
10:52:22 +0530
Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
3 - Abhay Shrivastava S/o Late Premlal Shrivastava Aged About 63
Years R/o G-7, Sale Tax Collony, Kachana Road, Shankar Nagar,
Khamhardih Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
4 - Balidas Jangde S/o Late Alen Das Jangde Aged About 70 Years R/o
Village Jamaha, House No. 65, Post Navagaon, Suraj Anand Ward,
Thana, Tahsil, And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh
5 - C.K. Thapak S/o Late Shankar Lal Thapak Aged About 75 Years R/o
House No. 607, A-7, Pupgiri Collony, Rubber Factory Road, Rajiv
Ghandhi Ward, Katni, Thana City Kotwali, Katni, District Katni M.P.
6 - Jhadu Ram Jangde S/o Late Salikram Jangde Aged About 63 Years
R/o House No. 53/653, Sardar Muhalla, Lakhenagar Chouk,
Idgahbhatha, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
7 - Prakash Ratan Agrawal S/o Late Chitranjan Prasad Agrawal Aged
About 66 Years R/o Near Gaya Bai School, Ward No. 3, Gaya Nagar,
Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh
8 - Vidhya Sagar Singh S/o Late Bholanath Singh Aged About 67 Years
R/o Near Vidhyut Sub Station Shivanand Nagar, Sector 3, Khamatarai
2, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2
9 - Anil Kumar Singh S/o Late Basant Singh Aged About 63 Years R/o
House No. 1265, Fafadih, Behind Khemka Hospital, Sai Nagar, Raipur
District Raipur Chhattisgarh
10 - Chowaram Sahu S/o Late Ledaga Ram Sahu Aged About 67 Years
R/o House No. 216, Biroda, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh
11 - Mustak Ali S/o Asharaf Ali Aged About 71 Years R/o Ward No. 9,
Maheshpur, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh
12 - Ateet Kumar Mishra S/o Late Jawahar Lal Mishra Aged About 63
Years R/o House No. 644 J-9, Saras Vihar Collony, Shri Jagannath
Hospit, Changorabhatha, Post Sundar Nagar, Raipur District Raipur
Chhattisgarh
13 - Chain Prasad Tiwari S/o Late Jagmohan Prasad Tiwari Aged About
76 Years R/o House No. 40/1248, Nizami Chowk, Sanjay Nagar, District
Raipur Chhattisgarh
14 - Joseph Franklin S/o Late B. Franklin Aged About 69 Years R/o
Near Samarpan Hospital, Laxmi Nagar, Mova, Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh
15 - Natthulal Nirmalkar S/o Late Adhinava Nirmalkar Aged About 70
Years R/o House 7/166, Ward No. 2, Kudarapara, Gudhiyari, Raipur
District Raipur Chhattisgarh
16 - Pyarelal Verma S/o Late Vishal Ram Verma Aged About 69 Years
R/o Nilja, Bhatapara, Saragaon, Bindra Wangarh, Raipur District Raipur
Chhattisgarh
17 - Maya Bai Anant W/o Hetram Anant Aged About 71 Years R/o
House No. 36/1 Kashiram Nagar, Telibandha, Raipur District Raipur
Chhattisgarh
18 - Smt. Neera Bai Thakur W/o Kunjlal Thakur Aged About 71 Years
R/o House No. 609, Ward No. 10, Shankar Nagar, Durg, District Durg
Chhattisgarh
19 - Raju Prasad Pandey S/o Late Jhala Ram Pandey Aged About 63
Years R/o House No. E/52, Maitari Nagar, Sundar Nagar, Mahadev
Ghat Road, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
20 - Girja Prasad Tiwari S/o Late Ishwarddin Tiwari Aged About 65
Years R/o Ward No. 88, Mahadev Ghat, Dewangan Badi, Behind Vridha
Ashram, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

3
21 - Chandrayan Singh Thakur S/o Late Karan Singh Thakur Aged
About 63 Years R/o House Non. Rr 664 D 105, Santhoshi Chowk,
Kushalpur, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
22 - Mohan Singh Kshatriy S/o Late Pyare Singh Kshatriy Aged About
70 Years R/o House No. 49/3900, Siddharth Chowk, Tikrapara, Raipur,
District Raipur Chhattisgarh
23 - Abdul Hakim S/o Late Abdul Habib Aged About 67 Years R/o House
No. 1419/60, Ward No. 60, Alfa Public School, Chourasiya Collony,
Sundar Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
24 - Pawan Kumar Sahu S/o Late Mahavir Sahu Aged About 54 Years
R/o Church Road, Joda Pipal, Ambikapur Chhattisgarh District Surguja
Chhattisgarh
25 - Ajaydan Ekka S/o Late Dayal Ekka Aged About 60 Years R/o
Barpali Road, Pathanpara, Gharghoda, Thana Gharghora, District
Raigarh Chhattisgarh
26 - Suresh Kumar Mishra S/o Sanat Kumar Mishra Aged About 60
Years R/o House No. 153/3, H-67, New Civil Line Road, Ward No. 15,
Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh
27 - Nand Kumar Vaishnav S/o Late Lakhan Das Vaishnav Aged About
62 Years R/o House No. 203, Housing Board Basti, Tatiband, Raipur,
District Raipur Chhattisgarh
28 - Smt. Saroj Shrivas W/o Late Jagdish Kumar Shrivas Aged About 58
Years R/o House No. 1357, Ward No. 38, Library Ramkundpara, Raipur,
Thana Ajad Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
29 - Smt. Shanti Devi Singh W/o Late Sankataha Singh Aged About 71
Years R/o House No. 67, Ward No. 21, Bemetara, Thana, Tahsil And
District Bemetara Chhattisgarh
30 - Smt. Sarita Sahu W/o Late Sobharam Sahu Aged About 70 Years
R/o House No. 2523/1, Ravi Shankar Shukla Nagar, Aamanaka, Raipur
District Raipur Chhattisgarh
31 - Sharvan Kumar Tripathi S/o Late Suresh Tripathi Aged About 42
Years R/o Near Kailash Mod, Shitla Ward, Ambikapur, District Surguja
Chhattisgarh
32 - Anjum Fasiuddin W/o Mohammad Fasiuddin Aged About 59 Years
R/o House No. 8/482, Budhapara, Kotwali Marg, Raipur District Raipur

4
Chhattisgarh
33 - Smt. Kamala Shukla W/o Late Dinesh Kumar Shukla Aged About
54 Years R/o R D A Building, House No. 305, Sarona, Raipur, District
Raipur Chhattisgarh
34 - Smt. Divya Sharma W/o Deepak Kumar Sharma Aged About 59
Years R/o House No. 47/554, Mahitosh Chowk, Kankali Talab,
Brahamanpara, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
35 - Smt. Nisha Mishra W/o Late Upendra Kumar Mishra Aged About 61
Years R/o Ward No. 64, Aadhiwasi, Kushalpur Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh
36 - Sohan Singh Thakur S/o Late Pyare Singh Kshatriy Aged About 65
Years R/o House No. 49/3900, Siddharth Chowk, Tikrapara, Raipur,
District Raipur Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resources
Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar,
District Raipur Chhattisgarh
2 - Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation Through Its
Managing Director, Old Police Head Quarter Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh
3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Finance Department,
Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioners : Mr. Bharat Rajput, Advocate
For Respondents/
State
: Ms. Sakshi Bajpai, P.L.
For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Vijay Ojha on behalf of Mr. Vivek Siddharth
Ojha, Advocate
(Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru)
Order on Board
01/09/2026

5
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners
who were working under the Chhattisgarh Infrastructure
Development Corporation (CIDC) on various posts have
challenged the decision taken by the State of Chhattisgarh dated
02.03.2012 whereby the employees have been denied the benefit
of revision of pay-scale from 01.01.2006 to 31.10.2011. He further
submitted that the decision taken by the State is contrary to the
law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of
Bihar State Beverages Corporation Limited and Others vs.
Naresh Kumar Mishra and Others (2019) 5 SCC 110 and
Union of India and Others, vs. Satya Brata Chowdhury and
Others, (2008) 16 SCC 383 . He also submitted that the benefit of
revision of the pay scale on the basis of the 6th pay commission
report has not been implemented by the department. Thus, the
petitioners sought a direction to the respondents to extend the
th
benefit of the 6 pay commission from 01.01.2006 to 31.10.2011.
2. On the other hand, the learned counsels for the respondents
would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the
petitioners. They submitted that as per the letter dated 13.10.2011
th
decision has already been taken to extend the benefit of the 6
pay commission to all the employees of the State Government as
well as Corporate bodies etc. from 01.11.2011. They further
submitted that the matter pertaining to the petitioners has already
been forwarded to the State Government for necessary action and
appropriate decision would be taken by the State.

6
3. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the documents placed on the record.
4. In the matter of Bihar State Beverages Corporation Limited
(supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in paras 22 to 27 as
under:-
“ 22. At the outset, it is required to be noted that by
impugned judgment and order the Division Bench of
the High Court has directed the Appellant Corporation
to grant the benefit of pay scale to the Respondents
herein – original Writ Petitioners as per the 6th PRC,
as per the decision of the Corporation itself in 2010.
By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court
has also quashed and set aside the resolution of the
Corporation dated 27.3.2012, by which it was
resolved to pay the salary to the employees of the
Corporation as is being paid to the employees
working in the parent organizations.
23. Now, so far as the quashing and setting aside the
resolution dated 27.3.2012 by which the Corporation
resolved to pay salary to the employees of the
Corporation as is being paid in the parent
Board/parent organization is concerned, it is required
to be noted that it is not in dispute that the respective
original Writ Petitioners are on deputation from
different Boards/ Organizations. Therefore, if the
resolution dated 27.3.2012 is permitted to be
implemented , in that case , there shall be disparity in
the pay scale/salary of the employees of the
Corporation doing the same/similar work. There may
be different pay scales/salaries in the respective
parent organizations. However, when they are
working with the Corporation and doing the similar
work, they have to be paid the salary which is paid to
other employees doing the same/similar work. It is
not in dispute that the employees working on different
posts in the Corporation are doing the same/similar
work. Therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court
has rightly applied the ‘Principle of Equal Pay for
Equal Work’ and has rightly quashed and set aside
the resolution dated 27.3.2012.
24. Challenge to the resolution dated 27.3.2012 is
also required to be considered from another angle. At
the time of advertisement and inviting the
applications, the employees were offered the specific

7
pay scales against respective posts. It appears that
the pay scale which was offered and thereafter paid
by it till the resolution dated 27.3.2012 was at par with
the pay scale paid to the Government employees as
per the 5th PRC. Therefore, thereafter, to pay any
salary/pay scale lesser than what was offered at the
time of inviting the applications would be changing
the conditions of service, which is not permissible.
25. Now, so far as the reliance placed upon Rule 282
and 283 of the Bihar Service Code by the Appellant
Corporation is concerned, even on considering Rule
282 and 283 of the Bihar Service Code, it cannot be
said that the person sent on deputation cannot be
paid any more salary/emoluments than what was
paid to the Government servant while working with
the Government. Rule 283 reads as under:
“Rule 283: (a) The pay which a Government servant
is to receive in foreign service shall be precisely
specified in the order sanctioning his transfer. If it is
intended that he shall receive any remuneration, or
enjoy any concession of pecuniary value, in addition
to pay proper, the exact nature of such remuneration,
or concession shall be similarly specified; and no
Government servant shall be permitted to receive any
remuneration or to enjoy any concession which is not
to be so specified.
(b) In determining an appropriate rate of pay, the
authority sanctioning a transfer to foreign service,
shall take into account the value of any concessions
which the Government servant may be permitted to
enjoy, such as –
(i) The payment by the foreign employer of
contributing towards, leave salary and pension;
(ii) the grant of free residential accommodation and
any benefit or advantages connected therewith; and
(iii) the grant of traveling allowance at special rates,
and the use of tents, conveyances, animals etc.,
belonging to the foreign employer.
(c) The terms granted to a Government servant who
is transferred to foreign service shall not be so greatly
in excess of remuneration which he would receive in
Government service, as to render foreign service
appreciably more attractive than Government service.
(d) No order of transfer to foreign service shall be
issued by the State Government without previous
consultation with the Finance Department.
(e) In cases where the power to sanction such

8
transfer has been delegated to a subordinate
authority, the initial pay of the Government servant
transferred shall not, without the special orders of the
State Government, exceed by more than 25 percent,
the substantive pay last drawn by him in Government
service and no concessions in addition to pay shall
be sanctioned except the following:
(i) the payment by the foreign employer of
contributions towards leave salary and pensions; and
(ii) the grant of travelling allowance on the scale
prescribed in the Bihar Travelling Allowance Rules.”
26. On a fair reading of Rule 283(c) and Rule 283(e),
it can be seen that it is permissible for the foreign
service to pay something more than what the
employees were getting in the parent department.
Therefore, the interpretation on behalf of the
Corporation on reading Rule 283 that the employee
sent on deputation to a foreign service has to be paid
the same salary/pay scale which he was getting in
the parent department, cannot be accepted.
Therefore, reliance placed on Rule 282 and 283 of
the Bihar Service Code while passing the resolution
dated 27.3.2012 was absolutely either misplaced
and/or on mis interpretation and, therefore, the same
is rightly set aside by the High Court. We are in
complete agreement with the view taken by the
Division Bench in quashing the resolution dated
27.3.2012.
27. Now, so far as the impugned judgment and order
passed by the High Court directing the Appellant
Corporation to grant pay scale to the Respondents
herein, original Writ Petitioners as per the 6th PRC is
concerned, it is required to be noted that, as such,
the Appellant Corporation itself took a conscious
decision in the year 2010 to grant the benefit of 6th
PRC to the employees working with the Corporation.
However, on the advice of the Finance Department
that the Corporation may grant the benefit of 6th PRC
to their permanent employees and not to the
employees on deputation, the Corporation thereafter
took a decision not to grant the benefit of the pay
scale as per the 6th PRC. As rightly held by the
Division Bench of the High Court, the advice by the
Finance Department was nonapplication of mind,
inasmuch so far as the Corporation is concerned,
there is not a single employee appointed by the
Corporation on permanent basis and the entire staff
is either on deputation or on contract basis from other
Boards/organizations. Therefore, the Division Bench

9
of the High Court has rightly directed the Appellant
Corporation to grant the pay scale to the
Respondents – original Writ Petitioners as per the 6th
PRC. However, at the same time, it is to be clarified
that they will get the pay scale as per the 6th PRC so
long as they continue to work with the Appellant
Corporation and as and when they are repatriated , in
that case , they shall be governed by the pay scale
paid to the employees in the parent
Board/Organization.”
In the matter of Satya Brata Chowdhury (supra) , the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held in paras 18 to 21 as under:-
“ 18. We may, at the outset, notice that the only
contention raised by the appellant before the Tribunal,
as also before the High Court, was that the
recruitment Procedure in the Eastern Railway
Administration was different for the Time-keepers. It
has been held not to be so. The judgment of the
Central Administrative Tribunal dated 5.7.1991 in TA
No.1585 of 1986 has been noticed by us. Therein, the
Tribunal directed the workmen of the workshops at
Liluah and elsewhere to be treated at par with their
counterparts of Kharagpur, Banaras and Chittaranjan
locomotive workshop. It was, therefore, impermissible
for the appellant to treat the workers similarly situated,
differently. They were to be treated as workers under
the Factories Act . Only because some overtime
allowance became payable to them or a separate
seniority list was maintained or a cadre for the said

10
workers on workshop basis was constituted, the same
by itself, in our opinion did not authorize the Eastern
Railway Administration to discriminate the workers
working in one workshop with the workers working in
the other.
19. We may also notice that letter dated 13.7.2000
issued by the Chief Personnel Manager, Eastern
Railways Administration; from a perusal whereof it
appears that the claim of appellants that a different
recruitment rules existed for the Time-Keepers of
different workshops within the Eastern Railway
Administration, is not correct. It has also been so
found by the Tribunal as also by the High Court.
20. The contention of the learned Additional Solicitor
General that the Time-Keepers recruited in the Liluah
workshop could be treated differently from their
counterparts at Jamalpur as in the said letter they
were not treated as clerical grade staff, also does not
appear to be wholly correct. Appellants themselves
have annexed with their affidavit a letter dated
16.6.2006 issued by the Assistant Personnel Officer,
Eastern Railway, Jamalpur to Chief Assistant Officer,
Eastern Railway, Kolkatta wherein it was stated :
"As cadre/seniority of Time keeping staff is being
maintained with General Group Clerks as such

11
benefit of restructuring has been given to the
time keeping staff.
The staff posted in Time Office and working
as Time keepers are governed under
Factories Act ."
21. The Time keepers of Jamalpur Workshop, thus,
have been treated as workers under the Factories Act
and if they had been given the benefit of
recommendations of the Fifth Pay Revision
Commission, we fail to understand why the same
benefit would be denied to the respondents herein.”
5. Though a decision has been taken vide letter dated 02.03.2012 by
the State Government not to make payment of arrears of the
revised pay-scale to the employees from 01.01.2006 to
31.10.2011, no reason has been assigned in this regard. The
decision appears to be unreasonable, unfair, discriminatory and
violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
6. Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the matters of Bihar State Beverages Corpn.
Ltd. (supra) and Satya Brata Chowdhury (supra) and
considering the fact that the identical issue has already been
considered and decided by this Court in WPS No.697/2013 and
other connected matters by common order dated 11/07/2024
which has duly been affirmed by the Division Bench in WA
No.622/2024 decided on 30/09/2024, the present writ petitions are

12
also disposed of in terms of para 7 of the order passed in WPS
No.697/2013 and other connected matters. Para 7 of the said
order is quoted below:-
“7. As the Circular dated 02.03.2012 has already been
quashed meaning thereby the petitioners would be
entitled to get the benefit of the 6th pay commission
and other revisions of salary from 01.01.2006 till
31.10.2011. Thereafter, the State Authorities are
directed to calculate the amount of arrears of salary of
the petitioners and to make payment and decide the
representation subject to verification of the amount
claimed by the petitioners preferably within a period of
150 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order”
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
SD/-
(BIBHU DATTA GURU)
JUDGE
Jyoti