1

CGHC010295512026 2026:CGHC:35449

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPS No. 5791 of 2026

1 - Gopinath Pillai S/o Narayana Pillai Aged About 72 Years R/o D-

203, First Floor, Housing Board Colony, Raipur Naka, Durg, Durg

Distt. Chhattisgarh State 491001, Pin 491001

2 - Pradeep Kumar Rajput S/o Mishri Rajput Aged About 76 Years

R/o Thakurpara, Pawarjali, Kawardha, Damapur, Distt. Kabirdham,

Chhattisgarh State 491001 Pin 491559

3 - Arif Khan S/o Late Israil Khan Aged About 64 Years R/o 826/186,

Ward No. 16, Durg Public School, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh State Pin

491001

4 - Mohanlal Singh S/o Jagpat Singh Aged About 70 Years R/o Ganga

Nagar, Sector-2, Near Shiv Mandir, Mangla, Bilaspur, Bilaspur Distt,

Chhattisgarh State

5 - Chammalal Nishad S/o Hiraman Nishad Aged About 70 Years R/o

308, Ward No. 15, Ghasidas Nagar, Fouji Nagar, I.E. Bhilai, Distt.

Durg, Chhattisgarh State Pin 490026

2

6 - Sharad Kumar Mahobia S/o Tularam Mahobia Aged About 67

Years R/o 193, Ward No. 11, Shankar Nagar, Distt Durg,

Chhattisgarh State, Pin 491001

7 - Chandrashekhar Mishra S/o Rameshwar Dayal Mishra Aged

About 68 Years R/o Ward No. 8, Anand Vihar Colony, Kawardha,

Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh State, Pin 491995

8 - Ramesh Kumar Soni S/o Dauwa Prasad Soni Aged About 69 Years

R/o Ward No. 9, Rajmahal Colony, Kawardha, Kabirdham, Distt.

Chhattisgarh State 491001 Pin 495001

9 - Uttara Kumar Patel S/o Chandan Singh Patel Aged About 64

Years House No. 339/03, Behind Wallfort City, Dream Residency,

Bhatagaon, Dev Vihar, Raipur Distt, Chhattisgarh State Pin 492013

10 - Sheikh Saleem S/o Sheikh Habib Aged About 67 Years R/o

Shalimar Press Ke Paas, Chhoti Line Ke Neeche, Raja Talab, Distt.

Raipur, Chhattisgarh State 492004

11 - Lakhan Lal Verma S/o Tijau Ram Verma Aged About 58 Years

R/o H. No. 425, Ravmandir, Birgaon, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh

State, Pin 493221

12 - Smt. Ganga Verma W/o Shatrughan Lal Verma Aged About 61

3

Years R/o H. No. 75, Ward No. 4, Village Ghatiyakala, Godgiri, Distt.

Bemetara, Chhattisgarh State Pin 490036

13 - Smt. Annu Patwa W/o Munnalal Patwa Aged About 65 Years R/o

L I G 68, V T C Mungi, Chand Khuri, Arang, Distt. Raipur,

Chhattisgarh State, Pin 492101

14 - Chaturram Patel S/o Ganeshram Patel Aged About 65 Years R/o

S7f-25 Sector 2 Street 7a, Professor Colony, Distt. Raipur,

Chhattisgarh State, Pin 492001

15 - Hafeez Khan S/o Abdul Hamid Khan Aged About 65 Years R/o

Near J J Battery, Modahapara, Ganjpara, Distt. Raipur, Chahttisgarh

State

16 - Moti Chandan Sahu S/o Hira Ram Sahu Aged About 66 Years

R/o Ward No. 50, Behind Aata Chakki, Chhattisgarh Nagar,

Tikrapara, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh State Pin 492001

17 - Smt. Julekha Begum W/o Mohammed Sabir Aged About 56

Years R/o 260, Sanjay Nagar, Nizami Chowk, Tikrapara,

Bindrawangarh, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh State, Pin 492001

18 - Tulsiram Sahu S/o Girdhari Lal Sahu Aged About 60 Years R/o H.

No. 7/381, Fazal Complex, Baijanathpara, Chhattisgarh Urdu

Academy, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh State Pin 492001

19 - Shyamacharan Sahu S/o Punit Ram Sahu Aged About 66 Years

4

R/o Ward 50, Near Bhamasah School, Chhattisgarh Nagar, Distt.

Raipur, Chhattisgarh State, Pin 492001

20 - Kapil Sharma S/o Bharat Lal Sharma Aged About 65 Years R/o

Ward No. 18, Village Tarri, Patewa, Abhanpur, Distt. Raipur,

Chhattisgarh State, Pin 493885

21 - Raghunandan Sharma S/o B P Sharma Aged About 71 Years R/o

Ward No. 3, Village Tarri, Gaura Chowk, Patewa, Abhanpur, Distt.

Raipur, Chhattisgarh State, Pin 493885

22 - Bhagwat Ram Sahu S/o Atmaram Sahu Aged About 64 Years

R/o Deori Khurd Village, Deori P.O., Bilaspur, Bilaspur Distt.

Chhattisgarh State 491001

23 - Ram Dayal Dhruv S/o Bhanjan Dhruv Aged About 70 Years R/o

Ward No. 12, Talaa Ke Paas, Daihan Chowk, Sirgitti, Bilaspur

Chhattisgarh State 495001

24 - Smt. Anita Pandey W/o Late Rajendra Prasad Pandey Aged

About 60 Years R/o H. No. 59, Durga Mandir Ke Paas, Amapara,

Ward No. 12, Dhamtari Distt. Chhattisgarh State 493773

25 - Chandrika Bai Sinha W/o Digambar Lal Sinha Aged About 63

Years R/o 428, Pahadipara, Demar, Distt. Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

State 493773

26 - Jayshree Vaidya W/o Rajan Vaidya Aged About 66 Years Junwani

5

Marg, Kohka, Bhilai, Supela, Bhilai, Distt Durg Chhattisgarh State

490023

27 - Susheela Jadhav W/o Rajendra Jadhav Aged About 66 Years

Kududand, Chandni Chowk, Bilaspur, Bilaspur Distt. Chhattisgarh

State 495001

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary To Govt. Of

Chhattisgarh, Transport Deptt., Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan,

Sector 29, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur Distt Chhattisgarh State

2 - The Secretary To Govt Of Chhattisgarh Finance Department,

Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, Sector 29, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar,

Raipur Distt Chhattisgarh State

3 - The Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation (C I D

C) Through Its Managing Director, Shashtri Chowk, Raipur,

Chhattisgarh State 491001 Pin 492001

... Respondent(s)

(Cause title taken from CIS)

For Petitioner(s) :Shri K.R. Nair, Advocate

For Respondent/State:Shri Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer

For Respondent No. 3:Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Senior Advocate

assisted by Ashutosh Shrivastava,

Advocate

6

Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru

Order on Board

12/08/2026

1.Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

petitioners who were working under the Chhattisgarh

Infrastructure Development Corporation (CIDC) on various

posts have challenged the decision taken by the State of

Chhattisgarh dated 02.03.2012 whereby the employees have

been denied the benefit of revision of pay-scale from

01.01.2006 to 31.10.2011. He further submitted that the

decision taken by the State is contrary to the law laid down by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Bihar State

Beverages Corporation Limited and Others vs. Naresh Kumar

Mishra and Others (2019) 5 SCC 110 and Union of India and

Others, vs. Satya Brata Chowdhury and Others, (2008) 16 SCC

383. He also submitted that the benefit of revision of the pay

scale on the basis of the 6th pay commission report has not

been implemented by the department. Thus, the petitioners

sought a direction to the respondents to extend the benefit of

the 6

th

pay commission from 01.01.2006 to 31.10.2011.

7

2.On the other hand, the learned counsels for the respondents

would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the

petitioners. They submitted that as per the letter dated

13.10.2011 decision has already been taken to extend the

benefit of the 6

th

pay commission to all the employees of the

State Government as well as Corporate bodies etc. from

01.11.2011. They further submitted that the matter pertaining

to the petitioners has already been forwarded to the State

Government for necessary action and appropriate decision

would be taken by the State.

3.I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and

perused the documents placed on the record.

4.In the matter of Bihar State Beverages Corporation Limited

(supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in paras 22 to 27 as

under:-

“22. At the outset, it is required to be noted that by

impugned judgment and order the Division Bench of

the High Court has directed the Appellant

Corporation to grant the benefit of pay scale to the

Respondents herein – original Writ Petitioners as per

the 6th PRC, as per the decision of the Corporation

itself in 2010. By the impugned judgment and order,

the High Court has also quashed and set aside the

resolution of the Corporation dated 27.3.2012, by

which it was resolved to pay the salary to the

8

employees of the Corporation as is being paid to the

employees working in the parent organizations.

23. Now, so far as the quashing and setting aside the

resolution dated 27.3.2012 by which the Corporation

resolved to pay salary to the employees of the

Corporation as is being paid in the parent

Board/parent organization is concerned, it is required

to be noted that it is not in dispute that the respective

original Writ Petitioners are on deputation from

different Boards/ Organizations. Therefore, if the

resolution dated 27.3.2012 is permitted to be

implemented, in that case , there shall be disparity in

the pay scale/salary of the employees of the

Corporation doing the same/similar work. There may

be different pay scales/salaries in the respective

parent organizations. However, when they are

working with the Corporation and doing the similar

work, they have to be paid the salary which is paid to

other employees doing the same/similar work. It is

not in dispute that the employees working on

different posts in the Corporation are doing the

same/similar work. Therefore, the Division Bench of

the High Court has rightly applied the ‘Principle of

Equal Pay for Equal Work’ and has rightly quashed

and set aside the resolution dated 27.3.2012.

24. Challenge to the resolution dated 27.3.2012 is

also required to be considered from another angle. At

the time of advertisement and inviting the

applications, the employees were offered the specific

pay scales against respective posts. It appears that

the pay scale which was offered and thereafter paid

by it till the resolution dated 27.3.2012 was at par

with the pay scale paid to the Government employees

as per the 5th PRC. Therefore, thereafter, to pay any

salary/pay scale lesser than what was offered at the

time of inviting the applications would be changing

the conditions of service, which is not permissible.

25. Now, so far as the reliance placed upon Rule 282

and 283 of the Bihar Service Code by the Appellant

Corporation is concerned, even on considering Rule

9

282 and 283 of the Bihar Service Code, it cannot be

said that the person sent on deputation cannot be

paid any more salary/emoluments than what was

paid to the Government servant while working with

the Government. Rule 283 reads as under:

“Rule 283: (a) The pay which a Government servant is

to receive in foreign service shall be precisely

specified in the order sanctioning his transfer. If it is

intended that he shall receive any remuneration, or

enjoy any concession of pecuniary value, in addition

to pay proper, the exact nature of such remuneration,

or concession shall be similarly specified; and no

Government servant shall be permitted to receive any

remuneration or to enjoy any concession which is not

to be so specified.

(b) In determining an appropriate rate of pay, the

authority sanctioning a transfer to foreign service,

shall take into account the value of any concessions

which the Government servant may be permitted to

enjoy, such as –

(i) The payment by the foreign employer of

contributing towards, leave salary and pension;

(ii) the grant of free residential accommodation and

any benefit or advantages connected therewith; and

(iii) the grant of traveling allowance at special rates,

and the use of tents, conveyances, animals etc.,

belonging to the foreign employer.

(c) The terms granted to a Government servant who is

transferred to foreign service shall not be so greatly

in excess of remuneration which he would receive in

Government service, as to render foreign service

appreciably more attractive than Government service.

(d) No order of transfer to foreign service shall be

issued by the State Government without previous

consultation with the Finance Department.

(e) In cases where the power to sanction such transfer

has been delegated to a subordinate authority, the

initial pay of the Government servant transferred

10

shall not, without the special orders of the State

Government, exceed by more than 25 percent, the

substantive pay last drawn by him in Government

service and no concessions in addition to pay shall be

sanctioned except the following:

(i) the payment by the foreign employer of

contributions towards leave salary and pensions; and

(ii) the grant of travelling allowance on the scale

prescribed in the Bihar Travelling Allowance Rules.”

26. On a fair reading of Rule 283(c) and Rule 283(e), it

can be seen that it is permissible for the foreign

service to pay something more than what the

employees were getting in the parent department.

Therefore, the interpretation on behalf of the

Corporation on reading Rule 283 that the employee

sent on deputation to a foreign service has to be paid

the same salary/pay scale which he was getting in the

parent department, cannot be accepted. Therefore,

reliance placed on Rule 282 and 283 of the Bihar

Service Code while passing the resolution dated

27.3.2012 was absolutely either misplaced and/or on

mis interpretation and, therefore, the same is rightly

set aside by the High Court. We are in complete

agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench

in quashing the resolution dated 27.3.2012.

27. Now, so far as the impugned judgment and order

passed by the High Court directing the Appellant

Corporation to grant pay scale to the Respondents

herein, original Writ Petitioners as per the 6th PRC is

concerned, it is required to be noted that, as such, the

Appellant Corporation itself took a conscious decision

in the year 2010 to grant the benefit of 6th PRC to the

employees working with the Corporation. However, on

the advice of the Finance Department that the

Corporation may grant the benefit of 6th PRC to their

permanent employees and not to the employees on

deputation, the Corporation thereafter took a

decision not to grant the benefit of the pay scale as

per the 6th PRC. As rightly held by the Division Bench

of the High Court, the advice by the Finance

11

Department was nonapplication of mind, inasmuch

so far as the Corporation is concerned, there is not a

single employee appointed by the Corporation on

permanent basis and the entire staff is either on

deputation or on contract basis from other

Boards/organizations. Therefore, the Division Bench

of the High Court has rightly directed the Appellant

Corporation to grant the pay scale to the

Respondents – original Writ Petitioners as per the 6th

PRC. However, at the same time, it is to be clarified

that they will get the pay scale as per the 6th PRC so

long as they continue to work with the Appellant

Corporation and as and when they are repatriated, in

that case, they shall be governed by the pay scale

paid to the employees in the parent

Board/Organization.”

In the matter of Satya Brata Chowdhury (supra), the

Hon’ble Supreme Court held in paras 18 to 21 as under:-

“18. We may, at the outset, notice that the only

contention raised by the appellant before the Tribunal,

as also before the High Court, was that the

recruitment Procedure in the Eastern Railway

Administration was different for the Time-keepers. It

has been held not to be so. The judgment of the

Central Administrative Tribunal dated 5.7.1991 in TA

No.1585 of 1986 has been noticed by us. Therein, the

Tribunal directed the workmen of the workshops at

12

Liluah and elsewhere to be treated at par with their

counterparts of Kharagpur, Banaras and Chittaranjan

locomotive workshop. It was, therefore, impermissible

for the appellant to treat the workers similarly

situated, differently. They were to be treated as

workers under the Factories Act. Only because some

overtime allowance became payable to them or a

separate seniority list was maintained or a cadre for

the said workers on workshop basis was constituted,

the same by itself, in our opinion did not authorize the

Eastern Railway Administration to discriminate the

workers working in one workshop with the workers

working in the other.

19. We may also notice that letter dated 13.7.2000

issued by the Chief Personnel Manager, Eastern

Railways Administration; from a perusal whereof it

appears that the claim of appellants that a different

recruitment rules existed for the Time-Keepers of

different workshops within the Eastern Railway

Administration, is not correct. It has also been so

found by the Tribunal as also by the High Court.

13

20. The contention of the learned Additional Solicitor

General that the Time-Keepers recruited in the Liluah

workshop could be treated differently from their

counterparts at Jamalpur as in the said letter they

were not treated as clerical grade staff, also does not

appear to be wholly correct. Appellants themselves

have annexed with their affidavit a letter dated

16.6.2006 issued by the Assistant Personnel Officer,

Eastern Railway, Jamalpur to Chief Assistant Officer,

Eastern Railway, Kolkatta wherein it was stated :

"As cadre/seniority of Time keeping staff is being

maintained with General Group Clerks as such

benefit of restructuring has been given to the

time keeping staff.

The staff posted in Time Office and working

as Time keepers are governed under

Factories Act."

21. The Time keepers of Jamalpur Workshop, thus,

have been treated as workers under the Factories Act

and if they had been given the benefit of

14

recommendations of the Fifth Pay Revision

Commission, we fail to understand why the same

benefit would be denied to the respondents herein.”

5.Though a decision has been taken vide letter dated 02.03.2012

by the State Government not to make payment of arrears of

the revised pay-scale to the employees from 01.01.2006 to

31.10.2011, no reason has been assigned in this regard. The

decision appears to be unreasonable, unfair, discriminatory

and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

6.Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the matters of Bihar State Beverages

Corpn. Ltd. (supra) and Satya Brata Chowdhury (supra) and

considering the fact that the identical issue has already been

considered and decided by this Court in WPS No.697/2013 and

other connected matters by common order dated 11/07/2024

which has duly been affirmed by the Division Bench in WA

No.622/2024 decided on 30/09/2024, the present writ

petitions are also disposed of in terms of para 7 of the order

passed in WPS No.697/2013 and other connected matters.

Para 7 of the said order is quoted below:-

15

“7. As the Circular dated 02.03.2012 has already

been quashed meaning thereby the petitioners

would be entitled to get the benefit of the 6th pay

commission and other revisions of salary from

01.01.2006 till 31.10.2011. Thereafter, the State

Authorities are directed to calculate the amount of

arrears of salary of the petitioners and to make

payment and decide the representation subject to

verification of the amount claimed by the

petitioners preferably within a period of 150 days

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order”

7.Accordingly, all the writ petitions are disposed of.

Sd/-

(BIBHU DATTA GURU)

JUDGE

Shoaib