2026:CGHC:2663 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 395 of 2026

1 - Dr. Priti Pandey W/o Shri Anil Pandey Aged About 67 Years R/o D.D.U. Raipur, P.S. D.D. Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.)

... Petitioner Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

2 - The Commissioner Higher Education Department, Government Of C.G., Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

3 - Government Sant Govindram Shadani Arts And Commerce Girls College Raipur Through The Principal, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. Advocate General along with Ms. Apurva Nigam, Panel Lawyer SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

ORDER ON BOARD

16/0 1/2026

1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-

“10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to grant pension, gratuity

and other retrials benefits according to revised pay

scale of seventh pay commission, with arrears, along

with 24% annual compounding interest, till the date

of actual payment, to the petitioner, in the interest of

justice.

10.2 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner who was earlier appointed in Government Sant Govindram Shadani Arts And Commerce Girls College, District – Raipur stood retired from service on 30.11.2024 from the post of Assistant Professor (Economics). Petitioner being a government servant was given the benefit of 7^th pay-scale, however, at the time of computing the retiral dues, gratuity is computed on the basis of 4^th pay-scale and pension is computed on the basis of 5^th pay- scale for the retiral post. Petitioner has made several representations (Annexure P/4) to the respondent authorities for rectifying and recalculation of the retiral benefits, however, till date, no decision has been taken on the representations submitted by the petitioner.

3. He submits that in one identical case, this Court has disposed of the writ petition filed by the similarly situated employees/petitioner with a direction to the respondents therein to take decision on the claim of the petitioner therein and therefore, same order pay be passed in this regard.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents/State submits that as the petitioner is not pressing this writ petition on merits, but is only seeking a direction to the Respondents to consider and decide the representation submitted by the petitioner, he is having no objection to the limited prayer. However, he submits that the petitioner may file a fresh representation before the concerned authorities and if the petitioner submits afresh representation, it will be considered and decided in accordance with law.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

6. On due consideration of the submission of counsel for the respective parties, facts and circumstances of the case, nature of grievance raised by the petitioner, without entering into the merits of the claim of the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of at this stage, permitting the petitioner to submit a fresh representation before the concerned respondents raising all the grounds as raised in this writ petition and if such a representation is submitted, the concerned authority shall consider and take decision on the representation submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a further period of 03 weeks from the date of receipt of the representation.

7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision of the Division Bench in W.A. No. 111/2022 ‘State of