NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1382 of 2015 Chandrashekhar Gaikwad S/o Yogiraj Gaikwad Aged About 62 Years R/o Budhapara, Near Hanuman Mandir, Raipur P.S. Budhapara, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh S/o Through Principle Secretary Department Of Health, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2 - Director, Directorate Of Health Services, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner : Mr. Syed Majid Ali, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Vinod Tekam, Govt. Advocate and Mr. Vikhyat Arora, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

Order on Board

19/01/2026

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 20.06.2013 (Annexure P/5), passed by respondent No. 2, whereby the representation of the petitioner for grant of second time-

bound pay scale was rejected.

VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the petitioner Digitally signed was initially appointed on the post of Non-medical staff on 12.04.1977.

by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.02.03 He was continued in his service with utmost sincerity. The petitioner was ordered for granting first time scale pay with effect from 23.02.2010 vide order dated 01.04.2010. The State of Chhattisgarh had issued a finance instructions on 28.04.2008, in which the benefit of second time scale pay was provided to ‘A’ and ‘B’ class employees, who have completed 8 years of service and ‘C’ class of employees, who have completed 10 years of service. He would further submit that since, the petitioner comes under the ‘C’ class employee, therefore, he is entitled for second time pay scale as per the circular dated 28.04.2008. Further, a clarification has been issued by the State Government on 10.08.2009, by which class ‘A’ and ‘B’ employees are entitled for benefit of first and second time pay scale after completion of 8 years and 16 years of their service and class ‘C’ employees are entitled for benefit of first and second time scale pay after completion of 10 years and 20 years of service. Since, the petitioner was granted the first time scale pay on 01.04.2010 with effect on 01.04.2006, he is also entitled for second time scale pay, as he has already completed more than 20 years of service from the date of his appointment.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes and has submitted that, as per clause 15 of the Finance Instructions, dated 28.04.2008, there should be a separate decision with respect to the employees, who have been granted Kramonnati. The petitioner was granted Kramonnati vide order dated 01.04.2010 with effect from 01.04.2006. However, as per Annexure-2 of the said Finance Instructions, dated 28.04.2008, his post has not been included in the said Annexure-2 and it has been specifically mentioned in clause 15 of the Finance Instructions, dated 28.04.2008 that the employees, who have been benefited under the Kramonnati scheme, the decision would be taken separately with respect to the benefit of their time scale pay. He would also submit that in the clarification dated 10.08.2009, there is no mention about the benefit granted to the employees, who have been granted the benefit of Kramonnati also. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any benefit under the said Finance Instructions dated 28.04.2008 or 10.08.2009 and his representation has rightly been rejected by the authorities and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition.

5. The petitioner challenged the order dated 20.06.2013 (Annexure P/5), whereby his representation for grant of time-bound pay scale was rejected on the ground that, as per the schedule-II of the instructions issued by the Finance Department, the time-bound pay scale would