-1- 2025:CGHC:705 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2369 of 2018 1 - Smt. Suman Pandey W/o Shri Ashish Pandey Aged About 37 Years Presently Posted As Lecturer (Panchayat) At Government High School Basin, District Durg, R/o House No. 95, Jawahar Nagar Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Diksha Gouraha, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate For State : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Akash Pandey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 06.01.2025 1) Heard. 2) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH -2- “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased quash the impugned order dated 06.01.2018 issued by the respondent Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Durg. (Annexure- P/1). 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Durg to consider the candidature of the petitioner for grant of payment of salary amount from 30.05.2016 to 08.05.2017 with all other consequential benefit of services along with interest. 10.3 To kindly grant any other writ/ writs, order/ orders, relief/ reliefs in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 3) Ms. Gouraha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that at the relevant time, the petitioner who was holding the post of Lecturer (Panchayat) posted at Government High School Basin, District Durg (C.G.), was transferred from Dhamtari to Durg vide order dated 28.05.2016. She would further submit that pursuant to the transfer order issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Dhamtari, the petitioner joined at Durg on 31.05.2016. She would also submit that the transfer order dated 28.05.2016 was cancelled by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Dhamtari vide order dated 28.06.2016 and against that order, WPS No.5967 of 2016 was filed before this Court. She would contend that an interim order was granted in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 27.10.2016. She would further submit that pursuant to the interim order, the petitioner made a representation before respondent No.2 on 04.11.2016 but she was not permitted to join her services. She would further contend that the transfer order was cancelled by this Court vide order dated 08.03.2017 and thereafter, she was permitted to join her services. She would submit that the petitioner claimed salary from 31.05.2016 to 08.05.2017 as deliberately the petitioner was not permitted to join the services but the claim -3- of the petitioner was rejected by respondent No.2 vide order dated 06.01.2018 on the ground that the petitioner failed to move an application for joining. She would state that the petitioner has placed on record her joining application dated 04.11.2016 with a mark of receipt but the same has not been considered by the respondent authorities. She would pray to quash the order dated 06.01.2018 (Anexure P/1). 4) On the other hand, Mr. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would oppose the submissions made by Ms. Gouraha. Mr. Pandey would submit that the petitioner never approached respondent No.2 to join the services after getting the interim order dated 27.10.2016 passed by this Court in WPS No.5967/2016. He would submit that since the petitioner failed to join the services, she has no right to claim salary for that period. He would fairly submit that the writ petition of the petitioner was allowed and the transfer order was cancelled and thereafter, she was permitted to join the services. He would lastly submit that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 5) Mr. Kale, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State would support the contentions made by Mr. Pandey. 6) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 7) Initially, the petitioner did not file any document to show that she approached respondent No. 2 to join the services pursuant to the interim order dated 27.10.2016 passed in WPS No.5967 of 2016. The petitioner through a covering -4- memo dated 17.12.2024 has placed an application addressed to respondent No.2 with regard to joining with the mark of receipt dated 04.11.2016. This document appears to be genuine but in the order impugned dated 06.01.2018, respondent No. 2 has stated that the petitioner never approached the authority for joining and there is no document in the record. 8) Taking into consideration the submissions made by the respective counsels, the order dated 06.01.2018 (Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed. Respondent No. 2 is directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for payment of salary from 31.05.2016 till 08.05.2017 in the light of the joining application moved by the petitioner addressed to respondent No. 2 dated 04.11.2016. Respondent No.2 is at liberty to examine the genuineness of the application dated 04.11.2016. The entire exercise shall be completed by respondent No. 2 preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9) With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha