As per case facts, petitioners, employees under Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation (CIDC), challenged the State of Chhattisgarh's decision from 2012, which denied them the benefit of pay-scale revision from 2006 ...
1
CGHC010311272026 2026:CGHC:35451
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 6082 of 2026
1 - Punaram Nirmalkar S/o Late Nathuram Nirmalkar Aged About 68
Years R/o Ward No. 12, Berla, Nagar Panchayat Berla, P.S. And Tehsil
Berla District Bemetara C.G.
2 - Narendra Kumar Shukla S/o Late Laxman Prasad Shukla Aged
About 66 Years R/o Village Kolgarh, Post Office Nawagaon, P. S. And
Tehsil Mangwa, District Riwa M. P.
3 - Bhagirathi Gangaram Dewangan S/o Gangaram Dewangan Aged
About 74 Years R/o L I G 127, Sector -1, Saddu, Post Office, Saddu,
Raipur District Raipur C.G.
4 - Santram Dhruw S/o Late Jageshwar Dhruw, Aged About 65 Years
R/o House No. B- 1, Mandhar, P. S. Vidhansabha, Raipur District
Raipur C.G.
5 - Arun Kumar Yadav S/o Late Ferharam Yadav Aged About 62
Years R/o Ganesh Nagar Pushpak Industries Road Raipura District
Raipur C.G.
2
6 - Uttam Kumar Sharma S/o Feshun Lal Sharma Aged About 65
Years R/o Bazari Nagar Kushalpur, In Front Of Pahadi Talab, Behind,
Way Of Sonkar Cycle Store House No. -1736, District Raipur C.G.
7 - Kaushal Mishra S/o Late Bhushan Lal Mishra Aged About 70
Years R/o Gurugovind Singh Ward, Behind Kali Temple Pandari,
Raipur District Raipur C.G.
8 - Laxmi Kant Sharma S/o Late Ramnarayan Sharma Aged About 71
Years R/o House No. 47 / 615, Way (Gali) Ramchandra Temple
Brahamanara, Raipur District Raipur C.G.
9 - Dhanesh Nagale S/o Late Ukanddya Nagale, Aged About 64
Years R/o Room No. 08, Block No. 0 R D A Collony, Near Hunuman
Temple, Tikarapara Raipur District Raipur C.G.
10 - Vijay Pathak S/o Late Shivkumar Pathak Aged About 67 Years
R/o Shri Krishna Nagar Pahadi, Chouk Gudiyari Raipur District
Raipur C.G.
11 - Hariram Verma S/o Late Nanduram Verma Aged About 70 Years
R/o Village Koliha, Post And Tehsil Lavan District Balaudabazar
Bhatapara C.G.
12 - Shivkumar Shukla S/o Late Maniram Shukla Aged About 65
Years R/o Ward No. 24, Side, Of Chandravanshi Kar Shrinagar,
3
Raipur Bilapsur Bai Pass Road Kavardha, Thana Kavardha, District
Kabirdham C.G.
13 - Ram Kishan Bandher S/o Late Deraharam Bandher Aged About
74 Years R/o House No.- 85, Jaiatkham Chowk, Ward No. 08,
Abhanpur, Aamner, Nahanachandi, Bazar Abhanpur, District Raipur
C.G.
14 - Balram Yadav S/o Late Badri Prasad Yadav Aged About 74 Years
R/o Ward No. 38, Rudri, Dhamatari, Thana, And District Dhamtari
C.G.
15 - Mahesh Kumar Devangan S/o Late Churaman Devangan Aged
About 68 Years R/o Ward No. -03, Gidhawa Pinkghar, Balod, District
Balod C. G.
16 - Alakh Ram Sahu S/o Late Tikamdas Sahu Aged About 66 Years
R/o House No. 94, Ward No. 4, Kesala Rajnanadgaon District
Rajnandgaon C.G.
17 - Shriram Yadav S/o Late Faguram Yadav Aged About 74 Years
R/o Ward No. 25, Jaistambh Chowk, Rajnandgaon District
Rajnandgaon C.G.
18 - Ramuash Patel S/o Late Jagatnarayan Patel Aged About 63
Years R/o Barauda, Riwa, District Riwa- M. P.
4
19 - Kumuk Lal Netam S/o Late Pirthi Ram Netam Aged About 79
Years R/o House No. 61, Ward No. 06, Saraswati, Chowk Chandan
Nagar Motipur Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon C.G.
20 - Ramesh Singh S/o Late Sudhaarshan Singh Aged About 66
Years R/o L I G 195, Ward No. 45, Vaishali, Nagar Kaurinbhatha,
Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgoan C. G.
21 - Bhopal Singh Dhurandhar S/o Late Gajanand Dhurandhar Aged
About 72 Years R/o House No.- 10 / L Risali, Sector Civic Centre
Bhilai, District Durg C.G
22 - Motilal Sahu S/o Late Devdhar Prasad Sahu Aged About 66
Years R/o House No. 174,/ K, Aadivasi Mandal Road Ward No. 13,
Ajad Chowk, Ramanagar, Supela Bhilai District Durg C.G.
23 - Rajendra Devangan S/o Late Pyare La Devangan Aged About 68
Years R/o House No. 29, Ward No. 53, Potiyakala Abadipara Durg
District Durg C.G.
24 - Lal Rajiv Singh S/o Late Hamendra Singh Aged About 70 Years
R/o Rajafemili, Ward No. 4, Khairagarh, District Khairagarh,
Chhuikhdan Gandai C.G.
25 - Ramesh Kumar Soni S/o Late Manumant Soni Aged About 71
Years R/o House No. 155, Ward No. 37, Rani, Sagar, Marg Patelpara
Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgoan C.G.
5
26 - Rambhadran Panikar S/o Late Sukumar Panikar Aged About 70
Years R/o House No. 54, Ward No. 38, Behind Of Way Of Post Office
Rudri, Dhamatari District Dhamatari C.G.
27 - Ashok Wahi S/o Late C. D. Wahi Aged About 74 Years R/o Ward
No. 25, Sadar Uttar, Dhamtari District Dhamtari C.G.
28 - Devilal Sahu S/o Late Bihari Lal Sahu Aged About 64 Years R/o
House No. 778, Court Road, Behind Sain Zeviar School Gokulpur
Ward Dhamtari District Dhamtari C.G.
29 - Munna Lal Yadav S/o Late Shankar Lal Yadav Aged About 68
Years R/o Ward No. 38, Rajiv Nagar Basantpur Rajnandgaon District
Rajnandgoan C.G.
30 - Yoghesh Shukla S/o Late Ram Gopal Shukla Aged About 64
Years R/o House No. G N. 10, Ward No. 38, Near Polyechnic Collge G
A D Collony Rudri, Dhamtari District Dhamtari C.G.
31 - Magan Das Manikpuri S/o Late Heera Das Manikpuri Aged
About 71 Years R/o House No. 11, Ward No. 12, Khandupara
Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon C.G.
32 - Rambharosa Padoti S/o Late Ruau Ram Padoti Aged About 72
Years R/o House No. 120, Kirgaha Tola, Shikari, Mahaka,
Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon C.G.
6
33 - Dhanlal Badpatare S/o Gendram Badpatare Aged About 65
Years R/o Village Siltara Thana And District Balaghat M. P.
34 - Purushottam Singh Kshatri S/o Gulab Singh Kshatri, Aged
About 65 Years R/o Ward, No. 16, Tulsipur Bakhatabar Chal
Rajnandgona District Rajnandgoan C.G.
35 - Ganesh Shrivastava S/o Late Onkar Lal Shrivastava Aged About
71 Years R/o House No. 162, College Road Front Of Mahesh Juvelari,
Sonarapara Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon C.G.
36 - Vijay Kumar Ujawane S/o Late Ramcharan Sav Ujawane Aged
About 64 Years R/o Ward No. 45 Sai, Darshan Nagar Near Jeevan B
Gate Kaurinbhatha, Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon C.G.
37 - Rajesh Maroo S/o Late Anand Lal Maroo Aged About 67 Years
R/o House No. 222, Kuber Chowk Nandai, Ward No. 42,
Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgon C. G.
38 - Uttam Sharma S/o Late M. L. Sharma Aged About 72 Years R/o
House No. 61, Ward No. 7, Civil Line Simga, District Balaudabazar
Bhatapara C.G.
39 - Umendra Singh Baghel S/o Late Shobha Singh Baghel Aged
About 78 Years R/o House No. 198, Ward No. 23 Amar Tailors Camp
2, Sharadapara Bhairao Basti, Bhilai 1, District Durg C.G.
7
40 - Tahsildar Singh Bhadoriya S/o Late Jhanda Singh Bhadoriya
Aged About 68 Years R/o Village And Post Gadpara Mehgaon Bhind
District Bhind - M P.
41 - Neeleshwar Sharma S/o Late Vijay Ram Dubey Aged About 76
Years R/o House No. 65, Ward, No. 4, Brahamanpara Gaon, Devada,
Durg District Durg C. G.
42 - Elavanram Thakur S/o Deuram Thakur Aged About 66 Years R/o
House No. 241, Ward No. 38, Rajeev Nagar Rajnandgaon District
Rajnandgaon C.G.
43 - Suraja Sonwani S/o Late Shyamsundar Sonwani Aged About 68
Years R/o House No. 1 143, Sector 1 Ring Road Kashiram Nagar
Raipur District Raipur C.G.
44 - Ramesh Singh Bhadoriya S/o Late Hakim Singh Bhadoriya Aged
About 71 Years R/o House No. 10, Majara Keshav Singh Ka Pura Kot,
Goram Bhind, District Bhind M P.
45 - Dharam Das Dhawde S/o Late Karomani Ram Dhawde, Aged
About 67 Years R/o House No. 40, Ward No. 10, Pendri Khurd,
Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon C.G.
46 - Pawar Pandit S/o Late Babulal Pandit Aged About 65 Years R/o
Ward No. 14, Pairi, Basti Majarkata, Malgaon, Gariyaband District
Gariyaband C.G.
8
47 - Bhagwani Ram Devangan S/o Late Sundar Lal Devangan Aged
About 71 Years R/o House No. 829, Shiwaji Nagar Durg District Durg
C.G.
48 - Upendra Kumar Rajput S/o Sumer Singh Rajput Aged About 66
Years R/o Ward No. 64, Vinoba Bhave Nagar Kushalpur Raipur
District Raipur C.G.
49 - Mohhammed Wali Ullah Khan S/o Mohhammed Irsad Khan
Aged About 63 Years R/o House No. 24, Ward No. 10, Gidam N. P.
Dakshin Bastar Dantewada District Dantewada C. G.
50 - Surendra Nath Tiwari S/o Late Ramchandra Tiwari Aged About
66 Years R/o House No. D / 1 Kaliur, Road Govt. Girls , Polytechnic
Collony, Dharampur No. 2, Atarbihari Bajpai Ward No. 38, Bastar
Jagadalpur District Jagadalpur C.G.
51 - Amir Khan S/o Late Shekh Khan Aged About 68 Years R/o House
No. 70, / 1 Ward No, 10, Bhoalpatanma District Bijapur C.G.
52 - Francis George S/o Francis Varkey Aged About 63 Years R/o- 70,
Nag, Gali, Sanjay Gandhi Ward, District Jagadalpur C.G.
53 - Dinesh Prasad Singh S/o Ramji Prasad Singh Aged About 63
Years R/o House No. 348, Rajiv Gandhi, Ward No. 33, Jagadalpur
District Jagdalpur C.G.
9
54 - Sanjeev Sharma S/o Late R. P. Sharma Aged About 62 Years R/o
Kushwaha Gali, Shantinagar Ward No. 25, Jagdalpur District
Jagdalpur C.G.
55 - Lal Sahab Tripathi S/o Late Siddnarayan Tripathi, Aged About 70
Years R/o Ward No. 22, Gandhi Nagar Front Of Bus Stand Jagdalpur
District Jagdalpur C.G.
56 - Shyam Sundar Upadhyay S/o Late Mathura Prasad Upadhyay
Aged About 69 Years R/o Anukul Dev Ward No. 31, Bangalipara Hot
Khachora, Jagdalpur District Jagdalpur C.G.
57 - Nahar Singh Yadav S/o Late Revati Lal Yadav Aged About 68
Years R/o House No. 97 / Ka, Mother Taresh Ward No. 26, Jagdalpur
District Jagdalpur C.G.
58 - Mohar Singh Kaurav S/o Late Bhuvti Singh Kaurav Aged About
72 Years R/o Village Teton, Post Shepur, Bhind District Bhind M P.
59 - P. Narsinh Rao Naidu S/o Late Ramlu Naidu Aged About 72
Years R/o House No. 159, Jhankar Talkies, Balaji Ward No. 13,
Jagadalpur District Jagdalpur C.G.
60 - Shekhar Lal Vastrakar S/o Late Melu Ram Vastrakar Aged About
72 Years R/o House No. 6 / 11, Ward No. 6, Antarabhatha,
Dantewada, District Dantewada, C. G.
10
61 - Sitaram Netam S/o Lakhmu Ram Netam Aged About 62 Years
R/o Rahaman Gali Veersavarkar Ward 5, Patharaguda, Jagadalpur
District Jagadalpur C .G.
62 - Sant Lal Sahu S/o Late Gajadhar Sahu Aged About 73 Years R/o
Behind Bhagat Singh School Ward No. 06, Patharaguda, Jagdalpur
District Jagdalpur C .G.
63 - Maksood, Khan S/o Karim Khan Aged About 65 Years R/o House
No. 34, D N K Ward No. 09, Kondagaon, District Dantewada C. G.
64 - Chunni Lal Sethiya S/o Udaynath Sethiya Aged About 69 Years
R/o Bhathaguda, Ghatpmoor, Titirgaon, Jagadalpur District
Jagadalpur C.G.
65 - Shubhash Chandra Mishra S/o Late Ramkripal Mishra Aged
About 71 Years R/o House No. 52, Near Atal Awas Sai Grih Niwas
Samiti Kalipur, Titirgaon, Jagadalpur District Jagadalpur C.G.
66 - Shiv Shankar Kutare S/o Late Ukhram Kutare Aged About 64
Years R/o G A D / G 5, Collectrate Road Narayanpur District
Jagadalpur C.G.
67 - Manrakhan Lal Meshram S/o Lal Giru Das Meshram Aged About
76 Years Chhatrapati Shiva Ji Ward 36, Telar Khuti Road Baidarpara,
Aghanpur Gidam Road Jagadalpur District Jagdalpur C.G.
11
68 - Khesh Abdul S/o Shekh Jafar Aged About 75 Years R/o Motilal
Nehruward 15, Nayapara Jagdalpur District Jagdalpur C.G.
69 - Ram Kumar Sonkar S/o Late Pyare Lal Sonkar Aged About 67
Years R/o House No. 50 / 612, Ward No. 61, Purani Basti Sonkarpara
Raipur C.G.
70 - Smt, Savitri Patnayak W/o Suresh Patnayak Aged About 67
Years R/o House No. 951, Boarding Gali, Vivekanand Ward, No. 30,
Jagdalpur District Jagdalpur C.G.
71 - Balmukund Mishra S/o Late Ashwani Kumar Mishra Aged About
66 Years R/o Rakasrai, Ost, Saray Akil Chitapur Kaushambi, District
Kausambi U.P
72 - Jageshwar Singh Rajput S/o Late Sumer Singh Raiput Aged
About 69 Years R/o In Front Of Mahadev Talab, Rauput Niwas
Changorabhatha, Raipur District Raipur C.G.
73 - Balram Kaushik S/o Lata Gajanand Kaushik Aged About 71
Years R/o House No. 117, Jawahar Ward, Kaushik Gali Kanker
District Kanker C.G.
74 - Devendra Prasad Sharma S/o Ramkhilawan Sharma Aged About
65 Years R/o House No. 734 / K Mahadevghat Road, Raipur District
Raipur C.G.
75 - Lakhan Lal Sharma S/o B. P. Sharma Aged About 75 Years R/o
12
House No. 54 / 1033, Shanti Vihar Collony Sundar Nagar Raipur
District Raipur C.G.
76 - Krishan Kumar Barmal S/o Ramlal Barmal, Aged About 64 Years
R/o House No. 28 / 152 / 7, Ward No. 29, Santnam Chowk
Khamhardih Raipur District Raipur C.G.
77 - Laxminath Verma S/o Ghunari Ram Verma Aged About 65 Years
R/o Ward No. 19, Shriram Nagar, Mandir Hasoud, Aarang, Raipur
District Raipur C.G.
78 - Shabbir Khan S/o Aziz Ahmad Aged About 68 Years R/o House
No. 01, Gali, No. 48, Shankar Ward, Mungeli District Mungeli, C.G.
79 - Narenda Kumar Sharivastava S/o Badri Prasad Shrivastava
Aged About 72 Years R/o House No. 1142, L I G Housing Board
Collony, Sejbahar, District Raipur C.G.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Water Resources
Departmet, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Raipur District Raipur
C.G.
2 - Chhattisgarh, Infrastructure, Development Corporation Through
Its Managing Director, Shastri Chowk Raipur District Raipur C.G.
13
3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Finance
Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya
Raipur District Raipur C.G.
... Respondent(s)
(Cause title taken from CIS)
For Petitioner(s) :Shri Bharat Rajput, Advocate
For Respondent/State:Ms. Anuja Sharma, Dy. Govt. Advocate
For Respondent No. 2:Shri Vijay Ojha, Advocate appears on behalf
of Shri Vivek Siddharth Ojha, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru
Order on Board
12/08/2026
1.Though in the instant petition, the petitioners sought several
reliefs, but, at the very outset, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners would submit that this petition is squarely
covered with the decision rendered by this Court in WPS
No.697 of 2013, which has duly been affirmed by the Divison
Bench in WA No.622 of 2024 and as such the same may be
disposed of in terms of said order.
2.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
14
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.
3.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
15
Government for necessary action and appropriate decision
would be taken by the State.
4.I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the documents placed on the record.
5.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
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
16
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
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
17
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
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
18
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
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.”
19
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
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.
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
20
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
recommendations of the Fifth Pay Revision
Commission, we fail to understand why the same
benefit would be denied to the respondents herein.”
6.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.
7.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
21
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:-
“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”
8.Accordingly, all the writ petitions are disposed of.
Sd/-
(BIBHU DATTA GURU)
JUDGE
Shoaib
In a significant ruling concerning government employees, the Chhattisgarh High Court has recently reiterated its stance on the disbursement of 6th Pay Commission Arrears and the adherence to the Equal Pay for Equal Work Principle. This detailed judgment, now available on CaseOn, serves as a crucial reference for understanding the rights of employees under pay commission revisions. The court's decision in *WPS No. 6082 of 2026* addresses the entitlements of employees of the Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation (CIDC), reaffirming prior judicial pronouncements on the matter.
The primary issue before the Chhattisgarh High Court was whether the employees of the Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation (CIDC), working in various capacities, were entitled to the benefit of the 6th Pay Commission's revised pay scale, including arrears, for the period between January 1, 2006, and October 31, 2011. This entitlement was denied by the State of Chhattisgarh through a circular dated March 2, 2012.
The court's decision was anchored in several established legal principles and precedents:
The petitioners argued that the denial of the 6th Pay Commission benefits and arrears by the State, specifically for the period from 01.01.2006 to 31.10.2011, was arbitrary. They contended that the State's decision, outlined in the circular dated 02.03.2012, lacked any valid justification and contravened the principles established by the Supreme Court regarding equal pay and the sanctity of service conditions. The court noted that a similar argument had previously succeeded in WPS No.697 of 2013.
The learned counsel for the respondents opposed this, stating that a decision had indeed been taken via a letter dated 13.10.2011 to extend 6th Pay Commission benefits to all State Government employees and corporate bodies from 01.11.2011 onwards, implying no arrears before this date. However, the High Court found this argument unpersuasive, particularly given the absence of a clear reason for denying arrears during the earlier period.
The court meticulously reviewed the Supreme Court's pronouncements in *Bihar State Beverages Corporation Limited* and *Satya Brata Chowdhury*. In the *Bihar State Beverages* case, the Supreme Court had set aside a similar resolution that attempted to create disparity in pay scales among employees doing similar work, including those on deputation. It emphasized that altering pay scales offered at the time of recruitment is impermissible and that the Finance Department's advice, if it leads to arbitrary outcomes for employees, can be challenged. Similarly, *Satya Brata Chowdhury* reinforced the need for consistent application of pay revisions.
The Chhattisgarh High Court concluded that the State's decision to deny arrears for the specified period was without reasonable grounds, unfair, discriminatory, and in violation of fundamental rights. Crucially, the court recognized that the current writ petitions were 'squarely covered' by its earlier judgment in *WPS No.697 of 2013*, which had already quashed the impugned circular and directed the payment of arrears. For legal professionals looking for quick summaries, CaseOn.in's 2-minute audio briefs provide concise analyses of such specific rulings, helping in rapid case assessment and strategy formulation.
Based on the consistent legal precedents and the lack of a valid reason from the State for denying the arrears, the Chhattisgarh High Court disposed of all the writ petitions. The court reaffirmed its earlier order in *WPS No.697 of 2013*, which had quashed the circular dated 02.03.2012. Consequently, the State Authorities have been directed to calculate the amount of arrears of salary for the petitioners, including the benefits of the 6th Pay Commission and other revisions, from January 1, 2006, to October 31, 2011. This calculation and payment, subject to verification of the claimed amount, must be completed within 150 days from the date of receipt of the court's order.
The document is an order from the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur concerning a writ petition (WPS No. 6082 of 2026) filed by numerous petitioners (employees of CIDC) seeking various reliefs, primarily the benefit of the 6th Pay Commission's revised pay scale from 01.01.2006 to 31.10.2011. The petitioners challenged a State Government circular dated 02.03.2012 that denied arrears for this period. The court noted that the petition was directly covered by an earlier judgment in WPS No.697 of 2013, which was affirmed by the Division Bench in WA No.622 of 2024. Citing Supreme Court judgments in *Bihar State Beverages Corporation Limited* and *Union of India vs. Satya Brata Chowdhury*, which emphasized the 'Principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work' and held that arbitrary denial of pay scale benefits without reason is discriminatory, the court quashed the circular. It directed the State Authorities to calculate and pay the arrears of salary, including 6th Pay Commission benefits, from 01.01.2006 to 31.10.2011, within 150 days.
This judgment is highly significant for legal professionals and students for several reasons:
All information provided in this article is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. While efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, readers are encouraged to consult with a qualified legal professional for advice pertaining to their specific circumstances. Reliance on any information contained herein is at the user's own risk.
Login with google
Legal Notes
Add a Note....