-1- 2025:CGHC:704 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 834 of 2018 1 - Shyamlal Nayak S/o Late Loknath Nayak, Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Madhopali, Post And Ps Saraipali, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Laxmanlal Patel S/o Late Sadanand Patel Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Madhopali Post And Ps Saraipali District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Narsingh Patel S/o Late Mohan Lal Patel Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Madhopali Post And Ps Saraipali District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Bodhram Patel S/o Late Devarchan Patel Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Madhopali Post And Ps Saraipali District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Chunnilal Patel S/o Late Jairam Patel Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Madhopali Post And Ps Saraipali District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Under Secretary Department of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Director Public Instruction District Raipur Chhattisgarh. Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- 4 - District Education officer, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Ms. Diksha Gouraha, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Mateen Siddique, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr.Vinay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 06.01.2025 1) The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order 12.07.20016 issued by the Under Secretary, School Education Department, State of C.G. (Annexure P/ 1). 10.2. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent state to count the services of the petitioner from initial of appointment i.e. in the year 1983, for the purpose of seniority as per the circular dated 05.07.2007, thereby granting benefits from initial date of appointment. 10.3. This, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other reliefs) / order(s)/ writ(s) 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.” 2) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were initially appointed as Lower Division Teachers vide order dated 03.01.1984. Later on, their services were discontinued. She argues that multiple original applications were filed before the learned State Administrative Tribunal, thereafter; directions were issued to the respondent authorities to reconsider the names of the petitioners for appointment. She further submits that a committee -3- was constituted, and the petitioners were subsequently appointed to the post of Lower Division Teacher by the Deputy Director, Public Instruction vide order dated 30.12.1997. She contends that the conditions endorsed in the appointment order clearly state that the services of the petitioners as Lower Division Teachers were to be considered as continued from the date of their initial appointment with the stipulation that they would not get the salary for that period. She submits that the petitioners are retired teachers and have made representations before the respondent authorities to count their earlier service for the calculation of pensionary benefits, but their representation was rejected by respondent No. 1 vide order dated 12.07.2016. She argues that the order (Annexure P/1) is illegal as it fails to take into account condition No. 2 of the appointment order dated 30.12.1997. 3) On the other hand, Mr. Vinay Pandey, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State submits that there was a break in the services of the petitioners as they were removed from the post of Lower Division Teacher and later reappointed as fresh teachers. Therefore, they have no right to claim continuity of service or the inclusion of their earlier service for pensionary benefits. He states that several original applications were earlier filed before the learned Administrative Tribunal against the order of discontinuation from services, and directions were issued to the respondent authorities to reconsider the claims of the petitioners. 4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed -4- on record. 5) The appointment order dated 30.12.1997, particularly Clause-II, reveals that earlier services of the petitioners were considered, and it was stipulated that they would not be entitled to receive the salary for that period. This indicates that the earlier services rendered by the petitioners may be counted for all purposes except salary. Respondent No. 1, however, rejected the representations made by the petitioners without considering Clause-II of the appointment order dated 30.12.1997. Consequently, Annexure P/1 is not sustainable and is hereby quashed. 6) The respondent authorities are directed to consider the claims of the petitioners regarding pensionary benefits counting their earlier services, in accordance with the appointment order dated 30.12.1997. 7) The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of six months. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim