Chattisgarh High Court
Dr. Smt. Sunanda Marawi vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 May, 2025
1
Digitally
signed by
RAVI
RAVI SHANKAR
2025:CGHC:22121
SHANKAR MANDAVI
MANDAVI Date:
2025.05.20
18:10:35
+0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 2770 of 2024
Order Reserved on 11.03.2025
Order Passed on 20.05.2025
1 - Dr. Smt. Sunanda Marawi W/o Shri Manoj Markam Aged About 54
Years Presently Posted And Working As Assistant Professor (Hindi),
Government E. Raghvendra Rao Postgraduate Science College,
Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Higher Education
Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur,
District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Director, Directorate Of Higher Education Department Indravati
Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Principal, Government E. Raghvendra Rao Postgraduate Science
College, Bilaspur District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Dhani Ram Patel, Advocate
For State/Respondent/s : Ms. Poorva Tiwari, Panel Lawyer
Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
2
C A V Order
1. Heard Mr. Dhani Ram Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner as
well as Ms. Poorva Tiwari, Panel Lawyer for the
State/respondent/s.
2. The petitioner has filed this petition against the order dated
12.05.2022, issued by the respondent No.1 by which the
representation of the petitioner for grant of higher pay scale has
been rejected. Earlier the petitioner has filed WPS No.1452 of
2022 in which vide order dated 04.03,2022, this Court has passed
following orders :
“2. Be that as it may, petitioner is at liberty to file
fresh representation before the respondents
No.2 & 3/competent authority alongwith copy of
this order for grant of Senior Grade
Pay/Selection Grade Pay and also Grade Pay of
Rs.9000/- & 10,000/- and, in turn, the
respondents No.2 & 3/competent authority is
directed to consider and decide petitioner’s said
representation, if preferred, in accordance with
law on its own merit by passing a reasoned and
speaking order preferably within four weeks from
the date of production of said representation
alongwith copy of this order.
3. With aforesaid observation and without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the
cases, the writ petition stands disposed of.”
3
3. Accordingly, the petitioner has preferred a representation before
the concerned authority, however, the same has been dismissed
by the impugned order dated 12.05.2022, as such the petitioner
has filed this petition seeking following relief/s:
“10.1. To call for the records of the case for the
kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.
10.2. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be
pleased to set aside the order dated 12.05.2022
(Annexure P/1) whereby the representation of
the petitioner has been rejected.
10.3. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be
pleased to direct the respondent authorities to
grant :
a) selection grade pay w.e.f. 2005
b) revised pay of Rs.9000/- w.e.f. 2008;
and
c) further revised pay of Rs.10000/- w.e.f.
2011
d) release all the consequential benefits
including the arrears with interest at the
rate of 15% per annum.
10.4. Cost of the petition may also be granted in
favour of the petitioner.
10.5. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court
deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted
to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.”
4. The petitioner has obtained post graduation degree in Hindi and
has also obtained Ph.D. in the Hindi subject. She was initially
appointed as Assistant Professor in the erstwhile State of Madhya
Pradesh vide order dated 28.11.1996, as such, she joined her
duties on 14.12.1996 and since then she is discharging her duties
in the said capacity. The State Government has passed orders in
4
respect of extension of benefit of senior grade pay dated
30.12.2004 fixed on 14.12.2002 and selection grade pay dated
17.07.2012 fixed on 14.12.2007. The petitioner was also granted
revised pay scale vide order dated 11.10.1999, from pay scale
Rs.2200-75-2800-100-4000 to Rs.8000-275-13500 w.e.f
01.01.1996.(Annexure P/5). The petitioner was awarded PhD
degree in the year 2003 and pursuant to the guidelines issued by
the UGC, she was required to be given reives pay scale of
Rs.37,400 to 67,000/- plus academic grade pay of Rs.9,000/- will
be entitled for academic grade pay of Rs.10,000/-. As per
guidelines of the UGC, after completion of 3 years of service on
revised pay scale of Rs.37,400 – 67,000/- plus academic grade
pay of Rs.9,000/- the concerned professor will be entitled for
academic grade pay of Rs.10,000/-, if the assistant Professor is
having PhD qualification. Since the petitioner was having PhD
qualification, as such, she is claiming aforesaid pay-scale from the
year 2005 instead of 14.12.2007. Earlier for the same grievance
the petitioner has filed a petition bearing number WPS No.1452 of
2022 in which this Hon,ble Court vide its order dated 04.03.2022
has directed the petitioner to move a representation raising all her
grievances and intrun the authorities are directed to consider the
representation and to pass an appropriate order by redressing the
grievance of the petitioner. In compliance of the same the
petitioner has moved an application raising all her grievances,
however, vide impugned order dated 12.05.2022, the said
5
representation has been rejected stating that the petitioner is not
entitled to get grade pay of Rs.10,000/- from the year 2005.
According to the petitioner, she is entitled to get revised pay of
Rs.9,000/- from the year 2008 and further completion of three
years, the petitioner is also entitled to receive revised pay of
Rs.10,000/- from the year 2011 which is evident from Annexure
P/1, however, the same has not been granted to the petitioner as
such, she has filed this petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after awarding of
PhD qualification in the year 2003 and pursuant to guideline
issued by UGC, the petitioner is entitled to get revised pay scale
of Rs.37,400/- to 67,000/- plus academic pay of Rs.9000/- on
completion of three years of service. Since she was receiving pay
scale as well as academic pay of Rs.9000/-, as such, after
awarding of PhD qualification, she is entitled to get Rs.10,000/-
per month on the part of having PhD qualification. By not granting
academic pay of Rs.10,000/- after getting PhD qualification, the
respondent authorities are committing illegality. The order
impugned is not in accordance with law and is purse illegal, as
such liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that in the earlier round, which the petitioner has filed this
petition, detail order has been passed by the learned co-ordinate
Bench, however, without assigning any cogent reason his
representation has been rejected.
6
6. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that subject to
due verification and scrutiny of the claim of the petitioner,
appropriate steps shall be taken at the earliest within a period of
60 days.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the
material available on record.
8. Relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in
case of State of MP and others vs. Satyavrata Taran reported
in (2012) 2 SCC 83 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
remanded the matter and thereafter the matter was listed before
the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court as Writ Appeal
No 599 of 2008 and the Division Bench has decided the matter on
7-2-2012 by remanding the matter to the learned Single Judge.
Learned Single Judge of Madhya Pradesh High Court has
directed State of Madhya Pradesh to consider the case of the
petitioners for grant of senior scale/selection grade after treating
the services rendered by the petitioners from the initial date of
their appointment as emergency appointees as a regular
appointment for the purpose of conferring the benefit of senior pay
scale and section grade.
9. Considering the fact that the petitioner has been appointed by
following due process of selection and the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh and this Court has already been concluded the issue and
also considering the fact that similarly situated Assistant
7
Professors who have been appointed on emergency basis, have
been granted the granted benefit of selection grade by adding of
the past services, the petitioners are also entitled to get same
benefit and their past services deserve to be counted for the
purpose of grant of selection grade only. The issue that similarly
situated employees are entitled to get similar relief, has been well
settled by Hon’ble Supreme in catena of decisions out of which
latest one is in case of Rushi Bhai Jagdishbhai Pathak Vs.
Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation, reported in (2022) SCC
OnLine Sc 641, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held at
paragraph 17 as under:-
“17. ………Normally, and as a model employer, on accepting
the said decision, the respondent- Corporation should have
uniformly applied and granted the benefit to all its similarly
situated employees affected by the order dated 28th
October 2010. This would have avoided unnecessary
litigation before the courts, as was held in State of Uttar
Pradesh and Others v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and Others:
“22.1. The normal rule is that when a particular set of
employees is given relief by the court, all other identically
situated persons need to be treated alike by extending
that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination
and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India. This principle needs to be applied in service
matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence
evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all
similarly situated persons should be treated similarly.
Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because
other similarly situated persons did not approach the
Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently.
22.2. However, this principle is subject to well-recognised
exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as
acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the
wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the
8same and woke up after long delay only because of the
reason that their counterparts who had approached the
court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such
employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment
rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be
extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters
and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would
be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.
22.3. However, this exception may not apply in those
cases where the judgment pronounced by the court was
judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all
similarly situated persons, whether they approached the
Court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is
cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit
thereof to all similarly situated persons. Such a situation
can occur when the subject-matter of the decision
touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of
regularisation and the like (see K.C. Sharma v. Union of
India). On the other hand, if the judgment of the court
was in personam holding that benefit of the said
judgment shall accrue to the parties before the court and
such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it
can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language
of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the
said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that
their petition does not suffer from either laches and
delays or acquiescence”.”
10. In view of the above discussion and considering the entire facts of
the case, material on record, this writ petition succeeds. The
impugned order dated 12.05.2022 (Annexure P/1) and denial of
selection grade by the respondents is set aside. The respondents
are directed to examine the case of the petitioner after adding her
past service appointed on emergency basis for grant of selection
grade and if the petitioner fulfill all the requisite conditions which
are required for grant of selection grade as per the policy/circular
9
issued by the State Government as well as University Grants
Commission from time to time within four months from the date of
receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear that adding of past
services shall be considered for grant of selection grade and
pension only. It will not be counted for grant of seniority. It is
further directed that after adding the past service, if the petitioner
is found eligible for grant of selection grade, the difference of
arrears be paid to her within further period of two months from the
date of taking final decision over grant of selection grade.
11. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), the present
petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Ravi Mandavi
