-1- 2025:CGHC:33890 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3532 of 2022 Narvadlal Yadav S/o Late Shri Ramprasad Yadav Aged About 85 Years Veterinary Extension Officer (Now Retired), Berla, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Veterinary Department , Mantralaya , Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur , Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director Veterinary Department , Indravati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur , Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Prithviraj Sahu, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 17.07.2025 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- set aside the impugned order dated 31.10.2018 (ANNEXURE P/1) & order dated 28.08.2019 (ANNEXURE P/2), passed by respondent no. 1 & direct the respondents to pay remaining amount of suspension period of petitioner from 28.11.1990 to 31.01.1997, with 18% yearly interest, in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was arrested in connection with the registration of a criminal case dated 28.11.1990 under Section 161 of the IPC and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 2(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. He would contend that the petitioner was placed under suspension. It is submitted that the petitioner was convicted by the learned trial Court in Criminal Case No. 74 of 1991, but in appeal (CRA No. 1817 of 2000), he was acquitted vide order dated 23.02.2017 wherein he was extended benefit of doubt. He would submit that the petitioner made various representations claiming full salary for the period of suspension, but the same has not been granted till date. He would further submit that a similarly situated government servant, namely Dr. P. K. Lal, was extended the said benefit and same is evident vide Annexure P/4. He would submit that the petitioner may be permitted to make a representation before respondent No.2, and that the said authority may be directed to decide the same strictly in accordance with law. 3) On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that the petitioner was -3- placed under suspension on account of the registration of a criminal case and, therefore, he is not entitled to get full salary for the period of suspension. He would submit that the employer has the authority under law to take a decision in this regard. 4) Heard. 5) Taking into consideration the submission made by counsel for the petitioner, at this juncture, this petition is disposed of, reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to make a fresh representation before respondent No.2, who in turn, decide the same preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of representation, keeping in mind that one similarly situated government servant was granted the benefit of full salary as evident from Annexure P/4. 6) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on merits of the case. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge NADIM