2026:CGHC:93 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5136 of 2024 Order Reserved on 20.11.2025 Order delivered on 02. 01.2026 T.P. Gupta S/o Late J. R. Gupta Aged About 60 Years Posted As O A Grade 1, Office At- Chief Engineer Office, Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, Thermal Power Station, Korba East, District- Korba, C.G.

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1. Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited Through Its Chairman, Office At Vidyut Bhawan, Danganiya, Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G.

2. Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited Through Its Managing Director, Office At Vidyut Bhawan, Danganiya, Raipur, District-

Raipur, C.G.

3. Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited Through Its Chief Engineer (H R), Office At Vidyut Bhawan, Danganiya, Raipur, District-

Raipur, C.G.

4. Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited Through Its Executive Director (Generation), Office At Dr Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, Thermal Power Station, Korba East, District- Korba, C.G.

5. Chief Engineer (Bilaspur Area) Office At C S P D C L Bilaspur, District-

Bilaspur, C.G.

6. Chief Engineer (Production) Office At Dr Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, Thermal Power Station, Korba East, District- Korba, C.G.

Digitally signed by SANTOSH SANTOSH KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:

2026.01.02 +0530

7. Superintending Engineer (T And Q A) Office At Dr Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, Thermal Power Station, Korba East, District- Korba, C.G.

8. Additional Chief Engineer (Fuel Management) Office At Dr Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, Thermal Power Station, Korba East, District- Korba, C.G.

... Respondent(s)

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

CAV Order

1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 13.08.2024 passed by respondent No. 6/ Chief Engineer (Generation) Dr. Shayama Prashad Mukharjee Power Generation Station, Korba (in short Chief Engineer) wherein the petitioner’s claim for grant of second higher pay scale from 2008 has been declined and recommendation for recovery of excess payment made to the petitioner from 2008.

2. Facts of the case in brief, are that (A) Petitioner was appointed as a Peon on 27^th April 1985 and thereafter he was promoted on the post of Office Assistant Grade-3 in the year 1990. The petitioner was not promoted within 9 years of service thus he was granted first higher pay scale in the year 1999 as per notification dated 11.01.1997. Again, after 18 years of service, the petitioner was granted second higher pay scale in year 2008. The petitioner had submitted a form on 02.02.2008 for grant of next Higher pay scale, wherein it was clearly mentioned that the petitioner has not completed account training, despite non-completion of account training, the respondent, after conducting DPC, passed an order on 03.10.2008 and granting second higher pay scale to the petitioner.

(B) It is case of the petitioner that in the notification on 19^th July 2005 and its explanation dated 20^th October 2005 there is no requirement for account training for grant of higher pay scale. The respondent has a policy decision allowing the employees three minimum chances to complete their account training programme. The petitioner successfully completed the account training on 25^th August 2023 in his third attempt and the delay in completion was due to the pendency of a Court case related to the training results, which was only disposed of by the Hon'ble Court in the year 2023. The petitioner was promoted to Office Assistant Grade 2 in 2010 after completion of 25 years of service, the petitioner applied for the next higher pay scale on 3^rd March 2017.

(C) Despite the passage of time, no decision was taken on his application by the respondents, then the petitioner submitted a representation on 5^th December 2023 before the respondents. Thereafter on 9^th February 2024, the petitioner was informed that an inquiry had been initiated regarding his eligibility for the higher pay scale granted in the year 2008 which was