Facts
The 55 petitioners are Class-IV employees (Peons) working in various Government hostels in District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
Source reference: p.1-3They are classified as work-charged contingency paid employees.
Source reference: p.4, para. 2Pursuant to a Collector’s order dated 20.09.2021, the petitioners were granted the benefits of a revised pay scale upon completing three years of service.
Source reference: p.4, para. 2While they currently receive the regular pay scale, the State has allegedly failed to disburse the arrears of salary due for the period between 2016 and 2021/2022.
Source reference: p.4, para. 2The petitioners submitted representations to the Assistant Commissioner of Tribal Development (Respondent No. 5) on 20.12.2024 and 23.01.2026, which remained pending.
Source reference: p.4, para. 2Issues
1. Whether the respondents are liable to grant arrears towards the revised pay scale for the period from 2016 to 2021/2022.
Source reference: p.4, para. 12. Whether the Court should direct the respondent authorities to decide on the petitioners' pending representations within a specific timeframe.
Source reference: p.4, para. 2Law Applied
The court applied the principles of administrative law regarding the duty of state authorities to consider and decide upon representations filed by employees regarding service benefits and salary arrears.
Source reference: no citationThe matter is governed by the service rules applicable to work-charged and contingency paid employees under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) and specific executive instructions regarding revised pay scales issued by the Finance Department.
Source reference: p.4, para. 2Reasoning
The Court did not adjudicate on the merits of the petitioners’ entitlement to the arrears. Instead, it focused on the procedural lapse of the State in not addressing the petitioners' formal grievances.
Source reference: p.4, para. 4Noting that the petitioners are already receiving the regular pay scale as per the Collector's 2021 order, the Court found that the limited prayer for a time-bound direction to the authorities was reasonable and unopposed by the State counsel.
Source reference: p.4, para. 3The Court reasoned that Respondent No. 5, as the competent authority, is duty-bound to examine the legal validity of the claim for arrears according to established law.
Source reference: p.4, para. 4Holding
The High Court of Chhattisgarh disposed of the writ petition at the motion stage without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case.
The Court issued a direction to Respondent No. 5 (The Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, Raigarh) to take a final decision on the petitioners' pending representations in accordance with the law, expeditiously, preferably within four months from the date of receipt of the court order.
Source reference: p.5, para. 4-5Original Court PDF
AJAY KUMAR CHOUHANvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in