Smt. Shweta Diwan vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioners, working as Steno-Typists in various State Tax departments in Chhattisgarh, sought the benefit of a revised pay scale. This benefit was initially extended to Steno-Typists in the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh based on their qualification in stenography (100 wpm) and completion of 7 years of service, as recommended by the Choudhary Pay Commission and detailed in circulars dated February 18, 1983, and February 4, 1985. The State of Chhattisgarh, through a circular dated August 13, 2018, affirmed the applicability of these earlier circulars. Despite being granted the revised pay scale by departmental orders in 2020-2021, the Divisional Joint Director (Treasury, Account and Pension) refused to record this benefit in their service books, leading to representations by the petitioners which were not considered.

Held

The Court held that the petitioners are not entitled to the relief claimed. The reasoning was based on the fact that the circular dated April 28, 2008, issued by the Finance Department of the State of Chhattisgarh, modified and amended earlier schemes relating to the extension of the Time Pay Scale benefit. This circular clarified that government servants in Group C category would be entitled to a higher pay scale after completing ten years of service, and it also stated that cases where the Time Pay Scale was already extended under earlier circulars would not be reopened. Crucially, the Court noted that the circulars dated February 18, 1983, and February 4, 1985, had been cancelled by a State Government circular dated April 19, 1999. The Court found that the orders extending benefits to the petitioners were subsequently recalled by virtue of the April 28, 2008 circular, which the petitioners had not challenged. While acknowledging the principle of parity, the Court distinguished the present case by stating that the benefit of the revised pay scale or Time Pay Scale was never extended by the High Court to Steno-Typists, and therefore, relief on grounds of parity could not be granted. The Court also suggested that benefits extended to other departments might have been due to an "ignorance" of the April 28, 2008 circular, and a mistake in extending benefits to some employees did not create a right for others to claim the same.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners, working as Steno-Typists, are entitled to the benefit of a revised pay scale based on the circulars dated February 18, 1983, and February 4, 1985, and the subsequent departmental orders approving this benefit, despite the existence of a later circular dated April 28, 2008? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that the State of Chhattisgarh issued circulars in 2020-2021 approving the revised pay scale for Steno-Typists after verification and completion of seven years of service, following a skill test. They argued that the notification dated April 28, 2008, was not applicable to their cases and that similarly situated employees in other departments, and even employees of the High Court, had received similar benefits. They relied on the principle of parity and the Supreme Court's ruling in Arvind Kumar Srivastava to argue that they should not be discriminated against. Respondent's arguments: The State argued that the claims of the petitioners were denied based on the circular dated April 28, 2008, which modified and amended earlier schemes for extending the benefit of Time Pay Scale. They pointed out that the circulars dated February 18, 1983, and February 4, 1985, had been cancelled by a circular dated April 19, 1999. The State also contended that the benefit was extended to other departments due to ignorance of the April 28, 2008 circular and that the petitioners had not challenged this specific circular.