1 2025:CGHC:2453 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1746 of 2022 1 - Ramesh Kumar Sahu S/o Pachkour Sahu, Aged About 59 Years R/o Dumar Talab, Near Girls Hostel, Amanaka, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Inspector General Of Police, Raipur, Office At Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Superintendent Of Police, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate For State/Respondent(s) : Ms. Neelima Singh, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI 2 15/01/2025 1. Heard. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: “10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 03- 11-2021 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Superintendent of Police and the order dated 12- 02-2022 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Inspector General of Police. 10.2. That, the petitioner be reinstated in his service by his previously appointment order with all consequential benefits. 10.3. That, the period between the date of termination and the date of reinstatement will be considered for the purpose of computing the qualifying services for payment of the pensionary benefits. 10.4. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem- fit and appropriate.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier he was removed from services, however, in the Writ Petition (S) No.3152 of 2013 filed by the petitioner, the removal order was set aside (Annexure P/1) and the punishment was modified to minor penalty of withholding two increments with non cumulative effect and in the said order it has been stated that the petitioner will be entitled for all the consequential service benefits except back wages. Accordingly the petitioner is praying that he may be given other 3 service benefits, he will not claim back wages for the period up on which he was terminated. 4. On the other hand learned State counsel appearing for respondent authorities has not opposed the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering that the submission made by the petitioner is fair and reasonable and it is also in accordance with the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition (S) No.3152 of 2013 wherein it is ordered that the petitioner will be entitled for all the consequential service benefits except for backwages, the petition is required to be allowed. 7. Accordingly the petition is allowed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Ravi Mandavi