1 CGHC010366842018 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7654 of 2018 1 - Mayaram Sahu (Died Through Lrs) As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 06- 08-2025. 1.1 - Hemant Kumar Sahu S/o Late Mayaram Sahu Aged About 49 Years R/o House 172, Village Hanaiband Tehsil - Gandai District - Khairagar Chhuikhadan - Gandai (C.G.). 1.2 - Bhola Ram Sahu S/o Late Mayaram Sahu Aged About 43 Years R/o House 172, Village Hanaiband Tehsil - Gandai District - Khairagar Chhuikhadan - Gandai (C.G.). 1.3 - Mongara Sahu D/o Late Mayaram Sahu W/o Manharan Sahu Aged About 41 Years R/o House No. 169, Village Babai District - Kawardha (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1- State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Public Works, Mahanadi Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Post office And Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Engineer In Chief Department of Public Works Chhattisgarh, North Block Sector, 19, Nirman Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Post office, And Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief Engineer Department of Public Works, Raipur, Circle Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Executive Engineer Department of Public Works, Khairagarh Division, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. - Superintending Engineer Department of Public Works, Durg Division Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Anil S. Pandey, Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 15/07/2026 1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.i. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to release full back wages of the petitioner during the period 31/10/2007 to 7/6/2015. ii. Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner. iii. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice. iv. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the impugned Order dated 23.03.2026 (Annexure P/8) and grant of full back wages on the basis of revised pay scale and other consequential monetary benefits with interest @ 18% per annum.” 2. Mr. H. S. Ahluwalia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are legal heir of Shri Mayaram Sahu (hereinafter referred to as, the original petitioner), who was appointed on the post of Gangman on 01.04.1978. In his service record, date of birth is mentioned as 13.10.1945, based on school certificate. He would submit that on 22.11.2006, the original petitioner approached the respondent authorities for correction of his date of birth on the strength of Transfer Certificate issued by the Primary School, Kalegodi, Gandai Area, dated 28.04.1992 and claimed his date of birth 02.04.1956. The original petitioner retired from services on 31.10.2007 3 based on his incorrect date of birth i.e. 13.10.1945. He would further submit that the petitioner filed WP No.541 of 2006 for correction of his date of birth as 02.04.1956 in place of 13.10.1945. The said petition was disposed of and a direction was issued to the respondent authorities to consider the dispute involved after affording due opportunity of hearing to the original petitioner. 3. He would argue that the respondent authorities vide order dated 19.05.2015 corrected the date of birth of the petitioner as 02.04.1956 and the petitioner was reinstated in the service vide order dated 07.06.2015. He would further argue that the petitioner claimed arrears of salary and other benefits attached to the post w.e.f. 31.10.2007 to 06.06.2015. He would also submit that the Engineer-In-Chief, vide order letter dated 17.11.2017 made recommendation for grant of arrears of salary and other benefits to the original petitioner but respondent No.1 did not take any action, therefore, the instant petition has been preferred. 4. He would contend that during the pendency of this writ petition, the Superintendent Engineer (PWD), Durg/respondent No.5 vide order dated 23.03.2026 rejected the claim of the original petitioner and said order has been challenged by the petitioner(s) by way of amendment. 5. Mr. Ahluwalia, would submit that when the recommendation to make payment of arrears of salary was made by the Engineer-In-Chief, the respondent No.5 had no authority of law to reject the claim of the petitioners. He has placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Shobha Ram Raturi v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and others reported in 2016 (16) SCC 663; & Iswarlal Mohanlal Thakkar v. Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. & Anr. (2014)6SCC434. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Anil S. Pandey, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by 4 learned counsel for the petitioners and submit that the the original petitioner did not work with the department after date of retirement i.e. 31.10.2007 and, subsequently, his services were reinstated on 07.06.2015; therefore, petitioners are not entitled to claim back wages or any other benefits for the period during which original petitioner did not work. He would further submit that the original petitioner approached the respondent authorities for correction of his date of birth at the verge of retirement; thus, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 8. It is true that the original petitioner approached the respondent authorities for correction of his date of birth in service record on the basis of transfer certificate, wherein his date of birth is mentioned as 02.04.1956. He retired from service on 31.10.2007 and, subsequently, the department corrected the date of birth from 13.10.1945 to 02.04.1956 and reinstated him in service w.e.f. 07.06.2015; thus, the submission made by learned Government Advocate in this regard cannot be accepted. 9. The respondents never challenged the decision taken by the respondent authorities, whereby the date of birth of the petitioner was corrected. 10.The petitioners have claimed arrears of salary for the period from 31.10.2007 to 06.06.2015, during said period the original petitioner was not permitted to work. 11.The issue involved in the present matter is no longer res integra in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shobha Ram Raturi (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where the fault lies with the respondent in not utilizing the services of the employee, and had the employee been allowed to 5 continue in service, he would have readily discharged his duties, such an employee would be entitled to wages; the principle of “no work, no pay” would not apply. The relevant paragraphs Nos. 3 to 5 are reproduced hereinbelow:- “3. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the controversy, we are satisfied, that after the impugned order of retirement dated 31.12.2002 was set aside, the appellant was entitled to all consequential benefits. The fault lies with the respondents in not having utilised the services of the appellant for the period from 1.1.2003 to 31.12.2005. Had the appellant been allowed to continue in service, he would have readily discharged his duties. Having restrained him from rendering his services with effect from 1.1.2003 to 31.12.2005, the respondent cannot be allowed to press the self serving plea of denying him wages for the period in question, on the plea of the principle of “no work no pay”. 4.For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we are satisfied, that the impugned order passed by the High Court, to the limited extend of denying wages to the appellant, for the period from 1.1.2003 to 31.12.2005 deserves to be set aside. The same is accordingly hereby set aside. 5.The appellant shall be paid wages for the above period within three months from today. His retiral benefits, if necessary, shall be re- calculated on the basis thereof, and shall be released to him within a further period of three months.” 12.In the matter of Iswarlal Mohanlal Thakkar (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where the services of the employee were prematurely superannuated, he would be entitled to back wages from the date of previous retirement till the date of his correct superannuation. Paragraphs 3 and 4 are reproduced as under:- “4. As his date of birth was not corrected, the appellant filed a civil suit in the year 1997 for 6 declaration regarding his date of birth and prayed for interim relief, but the same was rejected. He then filed a civil misc. appeal No.124 of 1997 before the District Court, Bhavnagar, against the order of the civil court, but this also came to be rejected. The respondent-board, on 27.6.1997, pursuant to the date of birth in its records, terminated the services of the appellant and the appellant raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer which was referred by the State Government for adjudication to Labour Court, Bhavnagar vide reference(LCB) no.225 of 1998. The Labour Court has allowed the reference after conducting an enquiry and passed an Award dated 31.7.2001 holding that the termination of the services of the appellant prematurely on the basis of his incorrect date of birth was wrong and further directed the respondent to pay full salary, all admissible ancillary benefits from the date he was wrongfully and prematurely terminated from service till the date of his actual retirement and further, also ordered that a sum of Rs.1,500/- be paid as costs. The respondent filed a petition under Articles 226 and 227, being special civil application no.4168 of 2002 before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. The same was allowed and the award passed by the Labour Court in Reference(LCB) No.225 of 1998 was set aside. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has filed the present civil appeal urging various facts and legal contentions in support of his case. 11. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court and restore the award of the Labour Court, since the services of the appellant were prematurely superannuated taking his date of birth as 27.06.1937 instead of 27.06.1940, and therefore, he is entitled to full back wages and other consequential monetary benefits from the date of termination till the date of his correct superannuation considering his date of birth as 27.06.1940. The back wages shall 7 be calculated on the basis of revised pay scale and the same must be paid by way of demand draft to the appellant within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the respondent shall pay interest @ 12% per annum on the amount due, towards back wages and other consequential monetary benefits, from the date of the Award of the Labour Court till the date of payment.” 13.Having considered the facts of the present case in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above-referred matters, the order passed by the Superintendent Engineer, PWD, Durg, dated 23.03.2016 (Annexure P/8) is hereby quashed. 14.The petitioners shall be entitled to arrears of salary for the period, the original petitioner was kept out of service, along with other benefits such as increments and revision of pay, etc. 15.The respondent authorities shall make payment of the arrears of salary along with other benefits such as increments and revision of pay, etc. preferably within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 16.In the result, the petition is hereby allowed. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim