1 2025:CGHC:18787-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 273 of 2025 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh, (Respondent No. 1) 2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instructions, Raipur, Indravati Bhawan, Block- 3, First Floor, Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh, (Respondent No. 2) 3 - Joint Director Surguja Division, Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh, (Respondent No. 3) 4 - Collector Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh, (Respondent No. 4) 5 - District Education OfÏcer Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh, (Respondent No. 5) 6 – Principal, Govt. Higher Secondary School Katkalo, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh, (Respondent No. 6) ... Appellant(s) versus Smt. Krishna Verma W/o Shri S. C. Verma Aged About 45 Years Working As Lecturer (L. B.) And Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School, Bandana, Mainpat, District- Sarguja, Chhattisgarh, (Petitioner) ... Respondent(s) 2 For Appellant(s) : Mr. Y.S.Thakur, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 25/04/2025 1. Heard Mr. Y.S.Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General for the State/appellants. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 05.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 2959/2022, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent/writ petitioner challenging the order dated 25.01.2022 (Annexure P/1) by which the writ petitioner was only granted subsistence allowance for the period on which she was under suspension, was allowed and the writ petitioner was held entitled to get salary and allowance for the period she remained under suspension in light of the circular dated 23.11.2010 issued by the State Government. 3. The facts, in brief, as projected by the appellant/State is that the writ petitioner was appointed to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade II in the year 2005 and her services were regularized on the post of Lecturer (L.B.) at Government Higher Secondary School, Katkalo, District Surguja. The writ petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 26.10.2020 and the article of charge was issued to her. The suspension order was revoked on 29.07.2021 and in the departmental enquiry, the punishment of stoppage of one increment with non- cumulative effect was inflicted vide order dated 29.07.2021. As no 3 decision was taken by the Disciplinary Authority with regard to the period for which she was placed under suspension, a representation was moved by her upon which the respondent No. 2 passed an order to the effect that the writ petitioner would be entitled to only subsistence allowance. The said order was subjected to challenge before the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge, without looking into the circular dated 19.09.2013 issued by the State Government, has erroneously relied upon the earlier circular dated 23.11.2010 issued by the State Government and allowed the petition granting the relief as prayed for by the writ petitioner which needs to be set aside. 4. Mr. Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General submits that in fact the circular that would be applicable in case of the writ petitioner was the circular dated 19.09.2013 (Annexure A/2) issued by the State Government and the petitioner would not be entitled to any relief and the writ petition deserved to be dismissed. He submits that clause 6 of the circular dated 23.11.2010 on the basis of which the petition was allowed, stood amended vide the circular dated 19.09.2013 (Annexure A/2) and after amendment, considering the gravity of the misconduct, the decision of the suspension period would be at the discretion of the competent authority under Fundamental Rules 54-B. 5. On a specific query by this Court made to the learned Additional Advocate General as to whether at the time of argument before the learned Single Judge, the circular dated 19.09.2013 (Annexure A/2) was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, Mr. Thakur fairly submits that the said circular was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. 4 6. In view of the above, we do not find any reason to take any other view than what has been taken by the learned Single Judge. The learned State counsel cannot raise a ground which has not been taken before the learned Single Judge and as such, this appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.04.25 18:53:17 +0530