1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1990 of 2021 1 - Shankar Yadav S/o Late Prabhuram Yadav, Aged About 36 Years (Occupation Peon) R/o Civil Court Bilaigarh, Ps And Tahsil Baloda Bazar, District Balodabazar Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Finance Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The District And Session Judge, District Court Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar Chhattisgarh, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Presiding Officer, Nazarat Department Civil Court, Bilaigarh, District Baloda Bazaar Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Santosh Kumar Sahu, Advocate For State : Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, P.L. For Respondents No. 2-3 : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 23-07-2025 1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:- 10.1 This Hon'ble Court may please be kind 2 enough in quashing and setting aside the order impugned (Annexure P-1). 10.2 This Hon'ble court may please be kind enough in directing the respondents to pay all the benefits to the petitioner from the date of the order impugned dated 14/07/2020 & also direct the respondent authorities to pay the 48 days salary with interest. 10.3 This Hon'ble court may please be kind enough in granting the cost and any other relief to the petitioner. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner who was posted as Peon in Nazarat Section of Civil Court, Bilaigarh could not join services owing to unavoidable circumstances from 26.03.2020 till 15.05.2020 and respondent No. 2 vide order dated 14.07.2020 has declared that period as “period of unauthorized absence” and petitioner is further declared to be not entitled to receive salary for the said period. He further submits that circulars have been issued by the State Government to not deduct salary of employees during lock-down period. He prays to set aside the order impugned and allow this petition. 3) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3 submits that decision has been taken by the respondent authorities according to Rule 24 of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1977. He further submits that show- cause notice was issued to petitioner and after considering the reply filed by him, decision was taken. He also submits that order impugned is not a punishment. 3 4) Learned State counsel supports the submission made by Mr. Paranjpe. 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6) Rule 10 of Chhattisgarh (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 deals with major and minor penalties and the order impugned dated 14.07.2020 is not a penalty as per Rule 10 of the Rules, 1966. The order impugned has been passed according to the provisions of Rule 24 of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1977 which deals with absence after expiry of leave. Rule 24 reads as under :- 24. Absence after expiry of leave. (1) Unless the authority competent to grant leave extends the leave, Government servant who remains absent after the end of leave is entitled to no leave salary for the period of such absence and that period shall be debited against his leave account as though it were half pay leave to the extent such leave is due, the period in excess of such leave due being treated as extraordinary leave. (2) Wilful absence from duty after the expiry of leave renders a Government servant liable to disciplinary action. 7) Bare reading of the aforementioned provision and the order impugned dated 14.07.2020 would make it clear that authority concerned has passed the order in consonance with the provisions of Rule 24 of Leave Rules, 1977. Further, petitioner 4 remained on leave without authorization for considerable period between 26.03.2020 till 15.05.2020. Also, it is reflected from the documents annexed in the petition that sufficient opportunity of hearing was afforded to petitioner and after considering the reply filed by petitioner, order dated 14.07.2020 has been passed. 8) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, no case is made out for interference. Consequently, this petition stands dismissed. 9) However, petitioner would be at liberty to make a representation before superior authorities ventilating his grievance, if so advised. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.07.24 14:51:21 +0530