ANIL KUMAR CHAUHAN vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G. — WPS/3940/2026

Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 06th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: CGHC010176952026

Filing Number

WPS/10214/2026

Filing Date

30-Apr-2026

Registration No

WPS/3940/2026

Registration Date

04-May-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

SERVICE MATTERS ( 6 )

Sub-Category

PAY SCALES/ INCREMENTS / ALLOWANCES. ( 610 )

Judicial Branch

Writ Section

Decision Date

06-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OFF

Last updated 05-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ANIL KUMAR CHAUHAN

    Adv. HARISH KHUNTIYA,MANOJ KUMAR YADAV,MANOJ KUMAR YADAV, ,MANOJ KUMAR YADAV

  2. 2.Smt. Shanti Jolhe

  3. 3.Ku. Arti Malakar

  4. 4.Gajendra Lal Manthan

  5. 5.Kamlesh Jangde

  6. 6.Deepti Sarthi

  7. 7.Madhuri Khodihar

  8. 8.Hemant Kumar Bariha

  9. 9.Rajkumari Mahesh

  10. 10.Maheshwari Kumar Rathore

  11. 11.Leelabai Rathiya

  12. 12.Manjulata Dewangan

  13. 13.Smt. Garima Singh Thakur

  14. 14.Sanjeev Banjare

  15. 15.Bedmati Khunte

  16. 16.Ramkumar Satnami

  17. 17.Murari Chauhan

  18. 18.Dilesh Kumar Sahu

  19. 19.Kirtan Lal Yadav

  20. 20.Surendra Singh Sidar

  21. 21.Gouri Aditya

  22. 22.Kripasagar Ijardar

  23. 23.Tej Kumari Bareth

  24. 24.Vimal Kumar Petel

  25. 25.Hariram Bariha

  26. 26.Babulal Soni

  27. 27.Bholaram Yadav

  28. 28.Savita Sahu

  29. 29.Dudhmat Dhirhi

  30. 30.Sukhram Tirkey

  31. 31.Santoshi Bhardwaj

  32. 32.Leeladhar Sidar

  33. 33.Hemlata Sahu

  34. 34.Lakeshwar Kurre

  35. 35.Arjun Sarthi

  36. 36.Tarachand Yadav

  37. 37.Dushyant Kumar Sahu

  38. 38.Dhaneshwar Patel

  39. 39.Payal Mahesh

  40. 40.Ghasnin Nirala

  41. 41.Meena Kumari Sahu

  42. 42.Uma Sahu

  43. 43.Rajendra Prasad

  44. 44.Divyalochan Sidar

  45. 45.Rajkumar Chaurge

  46. 46.Anoj Ajay

  47. 47.Arun Kumar Yadav

  48. 48.Peelibai Sidar

  49. 49.Vikas Kumar Jaiswal

  50. 50.Meera Tandon

  51. 51.Tikeshwar Chauhan

  52. 52.Jugal Kishor Manthan

  53. 53.Mukund Lal Pahade

  54. 54.Rohit Kumar Sidar

  55. 55.Sudershan Singh Bariha

  56. 56.Thandaram Bariha

  57. 57.Sahdev Kumar Ajgalle

  58. 58.Smt. Sonam Goswami

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Advocate - A.G.

  2. 2.The Secretary

  3. 3.The Commissioner

  4. 4.The Collector

  5. 5.The Assistant Commissioner

  6. 6.The Joint Director

  7. 7.The District Treasury Officer

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem SahuView PDF

    Case Summary: WPS/3940/2026 Court Decision: The High Court of Chhattisgarh disposed of the petition by directing the Assistant Commissioner of Tribal Development (Respondent No. 5) to decide the pending representation for salary arrears within four months, in accordance with law. Key Facts: 58 Class-IV employees working in SC/ST hostels and ashrams sought arrears of revised pay scales from 2016-2021. Though regular pay scales were being disbursed from 2016 onwards, the accumulated arrears remained unpaid. Reasoning: The State counsel offered no objection to the limited relief sought. The court accepted the submissions and disposed the petition by mandating expeditious decision-making on the pending representation rather than directly awarding the arrears. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-May-2026

    Fresh Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

  4. 30-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WPS/3940/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WPS/3940/2026 Court Decision: The High Court of Chhattisgarh disposed of the petition by directing the Assistant Commissioner of Tribal Development (Respondent No. 5) to decide the pending representation for salary arrears within four months, in accordance with law. Key Facts: 58 Class-IV employees working in SC/ST hostels and ashrams sought arrears of revised pay scales from 2016-2021. Though regular pay scales were being disbursed from 2016 onwards, the accumulated arrears remained unpaid. Reasoning: The State counsel offered no objection to the limited relief sought. The court accepted the submissions and disposed the petition by mandating expeditious decision-making on the pending representation rather than directly awarding the arrears. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case