1 2025:CGHC:14718 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2064 of 2025 1 - Smt. Bindabai Darro W/o Roopsingh Darro Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Koyalibeda District - North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development Chhattisgarh Rajya Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan P.S. Mandir Hasaud Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary School Education Department, Mantralaya Naya Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Collector North Bastar Kanker District - North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 4 - Chief Executive OfÏcer Janpad Panchayat Koyalibeda Link OfÏcer Pankhajur District - North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.03.28 18:26:05 +0530 2 5 - District Education OfÏcer Kanker District - North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Anmol Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri Rishabh Bisen, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 27.03.2025 1. The above captioned Writ Petitions involve common questions of law and facts therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this facts therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. By way of these petitions, the petitioner(s) have sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned termination order (Annexure-P/1) dated 13/10/2008, passed by the Chief Executive OfÏcer, Janpad Panchayat, Koylibeda, Pakhanjur, as far as the petitioner is concerned, and direct the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner in service and also grant him all consequential benefits including the monetary benefits w.e.f. the year 2008. 10.2 Any other relief/direction, as may be deemed fit in the fact and circumstances of the case.” 3 3. The brief fact of the case would reflect that the petitioners were appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III on 8-8-2007. Respondent No. 3 has terminated the services of the petitioners along with various other Shiksha Karmi Grade-III on the ground that they secured employment on the basis of forged documents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) would submit that the impugned orders have been issued without complying with the provisions of Rule 9 & 10 Shiksha karmi (Recruitment and Service Condition), Rules, 1997 (for short “the Rules, 1997”). As such, termination of petitioners is bad in law. He would further submit that the co-ordinate Bench of this court in WPS No 6351 of 2019 has already examined the facts involved and directed reinstatement of the petitioner therein without back-wages. He would further submit that the issue is squarely covered by the decision passed by this court in WPS No 6351 of 2019 wherein following observation was made :- “7. Having considered the view of this court in the aforesaid order and the fact that it has based upon the earlier decision of this court wherein it has been specifically held that for terminating an employee from service whose services are governed under the Rules of 1999, it is incumbent upon the respondents to have initiated the proceedings as is required under Rule 7. 8. Non-compliance of the said rule vitiates the entire action on the part of the respondents. The impugned order in the instant case dated 29-6-2009 is, thus unsustainable and the same deserves to be and is accordingly set aside/quashed with consequences to follow. 4 9.However, this court is of the view that since the petitioners have not discharged their duties during the intervening period, they would not be entitled for the wages for the intervening period. However, the said period would be counted for the purpose of continuity in service. 10. Needless to mention that since the writ petition is being allowed on the ground of non-compliance of Rule 7, the right of the department would stand reserved if they feel so may initiate proceedings in accordance with the said rules”. 5. Learned counsel for the State would submit that in view of above factual matrix, it cannot be said that the action of respondent No. 3 was unjustifiable or illegal and would pray for dismissal of these writ petitions. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction. 7. From the records, it is quite vivid that the procedure provided under Rule 9 & 10 of the Rules, 1997 has not been followed and the Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No. 6351 of 2019 has already examined the same issue. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the judgment passed by this Court in WPS No. 6351 of 2019, these writ petitions are allowed in terms of the order passed by this Court on WPS No 6351 of 2019 on 8-11-2021 directing reinstatement of the petitioners without back-wages subject to verification of records and 5 also granting liberty to proceed further in accordance with applicable Rules. 8. In view of the above, pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Sd Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib