Entitlement to revised pay scales is governed by specific government circulars and cannot be claimed retrospectively.

The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in 1978 with the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation.

Following the reorganization of the state, his services were absorbed by the Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation (CIDC).

In August 2005, he was sent on deputation to the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, where he was subsequently absorbed.

The petitioner sought a direction to the respondents to grant him the benefit of the 5th Pay Scale effective from April 1, 1999, to July 2007, along with 18% interest.

The Municipal Corporation rejected his claim via an order dated January 17, 2019, based on a government circular.

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the 5th Pay Scale/Chhattisgarh Revision of Pay Rules, 1998 for the period between April 1, 1999, and July 31, 2007.

The Court primarily relied upon the Government of Chhattisgarh, Home (Transport) Department Circular dated August 1, 2007 (Annexure R-1/2).

This circular stipulates that employees of the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation under the control of the CIDC would be granted the benefit of the Chhattisgarh Revision of Pay Rules, 1998, effective only from August 1, 2007.

Crucially, the circular expressly clarifies that such employees have no entitlement to arrears or claims for any period prior to August 1, 2007.

The Court examined the terms of the Circular dated August 1, 2007, which governs the pay revision for CIDC employees.

It noted that the circular specifically sets the commencement date for the benefit of the 1998 Rules as August 1, 2007, and explicitly bars any claims for the period prior to this date.

The Court found that the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, acted in accordance with this binding government policy when it rejected the petitioner’s claim via the order dated January 17, 2019.

Furthermore, the Court observed that the petitioner had failed to challenge the validity of the underlying circular or the specific rejection order dated January 17, 2019, in the current writ petition.

Consequently, there was no legal basis to grant the retrospective benefits from 1999 as sought by the petitioner.

The Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, affirming the respondent's decision to deny the benefits for the period from April 1, 1999, to July 2007.

The parties were ordered to bear their own costs.