Page No.1 of 3 IN WPS-1210-2017 2025:CGHC:1028 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1210 of 2017 Munna Lal Shrivastava S/o Late Shri Mahadev Prasad, Aged About 63 Years Retired Principal At Government Higher Secondary School, Khongapani, Block Manendragarh, District Korea Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Joint Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director, Public Instruction, Chhattisgarh Government, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - District Education Officer, Baikunthpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh 4 - The Incharge Principle Government Higher Secondary School, Khongapani, Block Manendragarh, District Korea Chhattisgarh 5 - The Principal Presently Holding The Power Of D. D. O. Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Manendragarh, District Korea Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Mr. A.S. Rajput, Advocate For Respondent/State : Dr. S.K. Dewangan, Panel Lawyer ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 06 . 01 .202 5 1. This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 15.02.2017 (Annexure-P/11), passed by the respondent No.01, by which the claim of the petitioner for paying SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Date: 2025.01.08 14:09:54 +0530 Page No.2 of 3 IN WPS-1210-2017 him salary for the period 01.08.2015 to 03.12.2015 has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent- authorities are absolutely unjustified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of salary for the aforesaid period for the reason that the petitioner was duly working and serving the department during the said period. As such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and present petition deserves to be allowed. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel supported the impugned order and prays for dismissal of this petition on the ground that the petitioner was not working as government servant during the aforesaid period, as he stood retired from service on 31.07.2015 and, thereafter, granted extension to work only on 03.12.2015 and worked with the department from 04.12.2015 to 31.03.2016, for which period, he has been paid salary. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties considered their rival submissions made herein above and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 5. A perusal of the impugned order dated 15.02.2017 (Annexure-P/11) would show that firstly the petitioner retired from service on 31.07.2015 and, thereafter, he made application for extension for one year, which was granted to him only on 03.12.2015. Pursuant to which, he rejoined the services on 04.12.2015 and worked with the department from 04.12.2015 to 31.03.2016 and, for which period, he has been paid salary. Page No.3 of 3 IN WPS-1210-2017 However, the petitioner is claiming salary for the period from 01.08.2015 to 03.12.2015, for which period he neither worked nor served the department as a government servant and, for the said reason only, in compliance of this Court’s order dated 18.11.2016 (Annexure-P/09), his representation has been rejected vide impugned order dated 15.02.2017 (Annexure-P/11). 6. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge s@if