1 2025:CGHC:16647 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2415 of 2025 1 - Nirasha Badhai W/o Mehtaru Ram Badhai Aged About 38 Years R/o Village - Babudbena, District - North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, 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 OfÏce - Pankhajur, District - North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 5 - District Education OfÏcer Kanker, District - North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.04.09 23:49:20 +0530 2 (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Anuj Kumar Pandey, Advocate on behalf of Shri Aniruddha Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri Saumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 09.04.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- 2. “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. 3. 10.2 Any other relief/direction, as may be deemed fit in the fact and circumstances of the case.” 4. The brief fact of the case would reflect that the petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III on 17.01.2007 and he has been terminated from the service along with various other Shiksha Karmi Grade-III on the ground that they secured employment on the basis of forged documents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned orders have been issued without complying with the provisions of Rule 9 & 10 Shiksha karmi (Recruitment and Service Condition), 3 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 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 6. Learned counsel for the State would submit that in view of above factual matrix, it cannot be said that the action of competent authority was unjustifiable or illegal and would pray for dismissal of this writ petition. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction. 8. 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 petitioner without back-wages subject to verification of records and also granting liberty to proceed further in accordance with applicable Rules. 9. In view of the above, this petition stands disposed of and pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stands disposed of. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib