Chattisgarh High Court
Madhav Lal Nag vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 March, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 1613 of 2022
Madhav Lal Nag S/o Late Bisahu Ram Nag, Aged About 58 Years Head
Master, Government Primary School, Platpara, Bangaon, Tahsil
Pharasgaon, District Kondagaon R/o Village And Post Ghatula, Tahsil
Nagri, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School
Education, Mahanadi Bhawan New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur,
District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. The Collector, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh, District :
Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh
3. The District Education Officer, Zila Panchayat, Kondagaon, District
Kondagaon Chhattisgarh, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh
4. The Block Education Officer, Block Makdi, District Kondagaon
Chhattisgarh, District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. R. S. Patel, Advocate
For State : Mr. Suyash Dhar, PL
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order on Board
10/03/2022
1. The relief sought for in the present writ petition is for appropriate
direction to the respondents i.e. respondent no.3 & 4 to take
appropriate decision as regards the salary payable to the petitioner
during the period May, 2015 to June, 2018.
2. Contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner while in service was
implicated in a criminal case for the offence punishable under Section
376(2)(vii) of the IPC, Section 6 of the Pocso Act. The petitioner was
subjected to trial in a Special Case no.9 of the 2015. Vide the
judgment dated 16.09.2016, based upon his getting implicated in a
criminal case the District Collector, District Kondagaon vide order
dated 19.05.2015 terminated the services of the petitioner in view of
the Rule 10(9) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services(Classification,
Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. Subsequent to the acquittal of the
petitioner from the said criminal case, the order of termination was
recalled and he was reinstated in service vide order dated
14.06.2018 and in the order of reinstatement itself there was an
observation made by the Disciplinary Authority that the intervening
period shall be treated as the period spent on duty. However, the
petitioner has not been paid any salary and other benefits for the said
intervening period. The petitioner has been repeatedly approaching
the respondent Authorities by repeated representations but till date
no decision has been taken.
3. Given the limited grievance that petitioner has raised and also the
representation of the petitioner is pending consideration and the writ
petition as of now stands disposed of directing the respondent no.3 &
4 to take appropriate decision in the case of the petitioner so far as h
is entitlement particularly salary and other benefits for the period May,
2015 to June, 2018.
4. Let an appropriate order be passed keeping in view the provisions of
the Fundamental Rules at the earliest preferably within a period of
four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
5. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition finally stands disposed
of.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy)
Judge
Rohit
