^fl SK^%i^BS5Si= A ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR (Single Bench: Hon'bleShri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J) W.P.tStNo. of2007 Smt. Mangala Sharma Vs. State of C.G. & Another ORDER Post for Order: ^/09/20T[ Sd/- SunilKumarSinha Judge ^-.....// \^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR (Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha. J) PETITIONER W.P. (S) No. 3040 of 2007 Smt. .Mangala Sharma, W/o Shri B.P. Sharma, Aged about 57 years, present posted as Superintendent of Girls Observation Home Rajnandgaon, Distt.- Rajnandgaon (C.G,). Versus RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, Panchayat and Social Welfare Department D.K.S. Bhawan, ^4antralaya, RaipHr (C.G.). 2. Director, Panchayat and Social and Welfare Department Mahandi Khand D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) (Writ Petition under Article 226of the Constitution of India) Appearance: Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORDER (^7.09.2011) Sunil KumarSinha, J. (1) Petitioner- Mangala Sharma was holding the post of Superintendent, Samprekshan Griha (Observation home) in Panchayat and Social Welfare Department. She was promoted to the said post on 19.10.1981 in the pay scale of Rs. 400-720/-. As \f\ W,P.(S)No. 3040 of 2007 per schedule 1 to the M.P. Panchayat and Social Welfare (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1980, the pay scale of the Superintendent, Samprekshan Girha was Rs. 400-720/- in the Pandey Pay Scale and in the Choudhary Pay Scale it was revised to Rs. 1000-1800/-. The petitioner claimed that she was entitled to get the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- as per M.P. Revisionof Pay Rules, 1990. But on a remark appended in column 5 that the revised pay scale will be given only to the officers directly recruited by the Public Service Commission and thereafter a clarification of that nature issued by the Finance Department on 27.08.1990, stating that the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- will be applicable to the directly recruited employees, while pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500/- will be applicable to the promotees, the petitioner was not given pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/-. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for grant of pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- to her from the date of her entitlement as pernewRules i.e. fromOI.01.1990. (2) Mr. Sandeep Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, argued that the case of the petitioner is similar to the cases of Nand Kumar Sharma, Neelkanth Jhasiwal & Govind Ram Sharma, who had filed O.A. Nos. 688/1992, 736/1992 & 687/1992 before the M.P. Administrative Tribunal, Indore Bench, which were disposed of by a common order dated 07.06.1993 and the above applicants of the original applications were allowed to draw the >NR fr^s\ ftas; \^~ W.P. (S) No. 3040 of 2007 salary in pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/-. The above order passed by the Tribunal was challenged before the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 14816/1993, 14773/1993 & 15296/1993 and all the Special Leave Petitions were etismissed vide order dated 07.06.1993. Though the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- was given to the above persons, but similar treatment was not given to the petitioner herein. His submission was that the action of the State is arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India because the case of the petitioner is similar to the cases of above persons, therefore, the petitioner should also be given pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- from relevant dates. (3) Return has been filed by the State. It appears to be a formal return. Learned counsel for the State has contended thatthe pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- has been provided to the persons who were parties to the above matters including the Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court. Since there was no order in favour of the petitioner for giving trer pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/-, hence she was deprived from getting such pay scale. This has also been precisely contended in para 2 of the return. (4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the writ petition. (5) Admittedly, the petitioner and the above 3 employees who filed different original applications were similar situated persons .^' W.P. (SlMo, 3040 of 2007 because all were promotees. This is clear from the gradation list filed as Annexure-P-10. If the other similarly situated employees were given pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/-, then there was no reason with the State, to not grant similar pay scale to the petitioner. The ground taken inthe return doesnot appear to be reasonable. The point raised relating to entitlement of the promotees to get pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- has attained finality because of dismissal of all the Special Leave Petitions by the Supreme Court. In Maharaj Krishan^hatt^and Another -Vs- State of Jammu And Kashmir and Others. (2008) 9 SCC 24, theSupreme Court held that "once a judgment had attained finality, its benefit ought to have been extended to other similarly situated person". It is not disputed before me that the petitioner and the above persons, who filed the original appHcations, all were similarly situated persons as all were promotees, therefore, the benefit which was extended to the above persons should have been extended to the petitioner also by granting pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- from the date of her entitlement for the said pay scale. The petitioner cannot be deprived of the above benefit only on the ground that she did not have an order either from the Tribunal or from the hligh Court or Supreme Court as contended by the State in its return. (6) For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- to the petitioner on the basis of her promotion to the post of W.P. (S) No. 3040 of 2007 ^^ Superintendent, Samprekshan Girha (Observation Home) from the relevant date. The exercise of fixation and recalculation etc., as above, shall be completed within a period of 6 months from the date of filing of the certified copy of this order before the concerned authorities along with a representation with all the details and documents, which appears to be necessary to the petitioner. (7) No order as to cost. Sd/- SunaKumarStaba Judge vatti