Smt. Shweta Diwan vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, Smt. Shweta Diwan, a Steno Typist in the State GST Department, challenged an order dated 16.07.2021 by Respondent No. 5 (Joint Commissioner) which canceled a prior order dated 24.02.2021. The cancellation was based on an objection raised by Respondent No. 4 (Divisional Joint Director Treasury). This prior order had approved and sanctioned a revised pay scale for the petitioner. Subsequently, Respondent No. 5 issued a modified order on 07.07.2022, again approving the revised pay scale based on notifications dated 18.02.1983 and 04.02.1985. However, Respondent No. 4 refused to update the petitioner's service book, citing a communication dated 04.12.2014. The petitioner argued that notifications dated 18.02.1983 and 04.02.1985 remained effective in Chhattisgarh, as confirmed by a communication dated 13.08.2018, and that similarly situated employees and those in the Judiciary had received the benefit of revised pay scales.

Held

The Court held that the notifications dated 18.02.1983 and 04.02.1985 are still effective in the State of Chhattisgarh, as indicated by the communication dated 13.08.2018 (Annexure P-7). The Court noted that the benefit of these notifications had already been extended to other similarly situated employees. It distinguished the communication dated 04.12.2014 (Annexure P-2), which was based on a GAD circular dated 18.03.1988, by stating that it was only applicable to stenographers related to the Secretariat. Considering these points, the Court found it appropriate to direct Respondent No. 4 to re-examine the petitioner's matter. Respondent No. 4 was instructed to pass a reasoned order, taking into account the communication dated 13.08.2018 confirming the continued effectiveness of the 1983 and 1985 notifications within Chhattisgarh. This decision was to be taken within 60 days of receiving a certified copy of the order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the notifications dated 18.02.1983 and 04.02.1985 are still effective in the State of Chhattisgarh for the purpose of granting revised pay scales to employees like the petitioner? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that these notifications are indeed effective, as evidenced by a communication dated 13.08.2018 (Annexure P-7). They further argued that based on these notifications, Respondent No. 3 had granted the benefit of a revised pay scale, and similarly situated employees, including those in the Judiciary, had already received sanctioned increments. Therefore, Respondent No. 4 should be directed to comply with the order dated 07.07.2022 and update the petitioner's service book. Revenue/State's arguments: The State submitted that if the petitioner's case is covered by the notifications dated 18.02.1983 and 04.02.1985, then Respondent No. 4 may be directed to consider the petitioner's claim.