1 2025:CGHC:16390 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2356 of 2025 1 - Durgesh Kumar Dongre S/o Chindu Ram Dongre Aged About 49 Years R/o Ambedkar Gali, Station Para, Ward No. 11, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Chhattisgarh Rajya Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, P.S. - Mandir-Hasaud, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector North Bastar Kanker, District - North Bastar, Kanker Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Koyalibeda, Link Office - Pankhajur, District - North Bastar, Kanker Chhattisgarh 5 - District Education Officer Kanker, District - North Bastar, Kanker Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Anmol Sharma, Advocate. AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.04.16 12:11:19 +0530 2 For Respondent(s)/State : Shri Soumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 08.04.2025 1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for 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.” 2. The brief fact of the case would reflect that the petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III on 03/10/2007. Respondent No. 3 has terminated the services of the petitioner along with various other Shiksha Karmi Grade-III on the ground that they secured employment on the basis of forged documents. 3. 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 petitioner is bad in law. He would further submit that the co-ordinate Bench of this court in WPS No 6351 of 2019 has 3 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. 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”. 4. 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 4 was unjustifiable or illegal and would pray for dismissal of these writ petitions. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction. 6. 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, the present writ petition is allowed in terms of the order passed by this Court on WPS No 6351 of 2019 on 8-11-2021 directing reinstatement of the petitioner without back-wages subject to verification of records and also granting liberty to proceed further in accordance with applicable Rules. 7. In view of the above, pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Sd SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Amardeep