Article 14 & Service Law | Arbitrary Denial of Pay Scale Benefits After 42 Years of Lawful Service Violates Constitutional Fairness : CGHC Awards Arrears with 12% Interest

The Chhattisgarh High Court has clarified that an employee cannot be denied pay scale benefits merely because the post they held was not formally listed in the department’s sanctioned setup, provided the appointment was made in accordance with recruitment rules and no objection was raised during the entire tenure of service. This ruling reinforces the principle that substantive acceptance of service overrides procedural technicalities in public employment.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioner, A.K. Mishra, was appointed as a Lab Assistant on 03.12.1979 against a vacant post at Kirodimal Government Polytechnic, Raigarh, under the Technical Education Department of Chhattisgarh. He served continuously in this capacity until his superannuation on 30.04.2021, completing 42 years of service. Despite this long and uninterrupted service, the respondent authorities denied him the benefit of the second and third time pay scales, citing that the post of Lab Assistant was not included in the sanctioned setup of the department.

Key Facts

• The petitioner was appointed on 03.12.1979 against a vacant post, following applicable recruitment procedures.
• On 15.09.2000, he was granted the benefit of the first time pay scale with effect from 19.04.1999, without any objection from the authorities.
• The petitioner made repeated representations for the grant of second and third time pay scales, all of which were rejected on the ground that the post was not sanctioned.
• The impugned order dated 12.04.2021 (Annexure P/1) formally rejected his claim.
• The petitioner retired on 30.04.2021 after 42 years of service.
• The department had never questioned the validity of his appointment or the nature of his post during his entire service tenure.

Procedural History

• 03.12.1979: Appointment as Lab Assistant against a vacant post.
• 15.09.2000: Grant of first time pay scale with effect from 19.04.1999.
• 2018 - 2020: Multiple representations made by petitioner for second and third time pay scale.
• 12.04.2021: Impugned order rejecting claim on grounds of non-sanctioned post.
• 30.04.2021: Petitioner retired on superannuation.
• 2021: Writ Petition No. 3218 of 2021 filed before the High Court of Chhattisgarh.

Relief Sought

The petitioner sought:

• Quashing of the impugned order dated 12.04.2021.
• Inclusion of the post of Lab Assistant in the department’s sanctioned setup.
• Grant of second and third time pay scale benefits with arrears.
• Interest at 12% per annum from the date of entitlement until actual payment.
• Costs of the petition.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether the denial of second and third time pay scale benefits to a long-serving employee, on the sole ground that his post was not listed in the sanctioned setup, is legally sustainable when the appointment was made in accordance with rules and no objection was raised during the entire service period.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

Mr. K.P. Sahu, Advocate, argued that the petitioner was appointed against a vacant post in compliance with recruitment norms and was granted the first time pay scale without any protest. The fact that the post was not formally included in the sanctioned setup was a bureaucratic oversight, not the petitioner’s fault. Denial of pay scale benefits after 42 years of service, especially when the department had accepted his service for decades, amounted to arbitrary and discriminatory treatment under Article 14 of the Constitution. He relied on the doctrine of promissory estoppel and the principle that the State cannot take advantage of its own wrong.

For the Respondent

Mr. Anil S. Pandey, Government Advocate, contended that the post of Lab Assistant was not part of the sanctioned setup of the Technical Education Department and therefore, the petitioner was not eligible for any pay scale beyond the first time scale. He submitted that the grant of the first time pay scale was an administrative accommodation and did not create a vested right. He further argued that the impugned order correctly applied the rules and that the petitioner’s claim was without legal basis.

The Court's Analysis

The Court observed that the petitioner was appointed in 1979 against a vacant post, and his service was accepted without reservation for over four decades. The grant of the first time pay scale in 2000, with retrospective effect, further demonstrated the department’s acquiescence to the legitimacy of his position. The Court emphasized that the petitioner bore no responsibility for the department’s failure to formally sanction the post.

"If the post of Lab Assistant is not included in a sanctioned setup of the Technical Education, the petitioner cannot be blamed as he was appointed in accordance with the recruitment rules against the vacant post."

The Court held that the denial of pay scale benefits after 42 years of service, solely on the ground of non-sanctioned status, was arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of the principle of equality under Article 14. The State cannot remain silent during service and later invoke procedural irregularities to deny legitimate benefits. The Court distinguished this case from those involving fraudulent appointments or misrepresentation, noting that here, the petitioner acted in good faith and performed duties as required.

The Court further noted that the respondent authorities had already recognized the petitioner’s service by granting the first pay scale and had never challenged his appointment until after retirement. This conduct estopped them from raising the objection now.

The Verdict

The petitioner succeeded. The Court quashed the impugned order dated 12.04.2021. The petitioner is directed to make a representation before the Director, Directorate of Technical Education, within 30 days. The said authority is directed to consider the representation and grant the second and third time pay scale benefits, including arrears, within 90 days of receipt of the representation. Interest at 12% per annum shall be payable on arrears from the date of entitlement until actual payment. Costs of the petition are awarded.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Service Acceptance Overrides Sanctioned Status

• Practitioners representing long-serving government employees must argue that if a post was filled in accordance with recruitment rules and accepted for decades without objection, denial of pay scale benefits on grounds of non-sanctioned status is arbitrary.
• The doctrine of promissory estoppel and equitable estoppel apply strongly where the State has led the employee to believe their service and benefits are legitimate.

Delayed Objection Is Fatal to the State’s Case

• Any objection to the nature of a post must be raised at the earliest opportunity - not after retirement.
• Granting one level of pay scale (e.g., first time) without objection creates a reasonable expectation for subsequent benefits.
• Courts will not permit the State to benefit from its own administrative negligence.

Arrears and Interest Are Entitled

• Arrears of pay scale benefits must be calculated from the date the employee became eligible under the applicable pay commission or rules.

• Interest at 12% per annum is a standard remedy in service law cases where the State has unreasonably delayed payment.

• Always check whether the employee’s post was filled against a vacancy and whether the department ever questioned the legitimacy of the appointment.

• If the employee received any benefits (pay scale, increments, promotions) without protest, use this as evidence of implied acceptance.

• File representations immediately upon denial - delay may weaken the claim.