1 2025:CGHC:5206 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4158 of 2018 1 - Arjun Singh S/o Shri Ramprasad Singh Aged About 55 Years R/o Village And Post Sonhat , Police Station And Tahsil Sonhat Forest Division Baikunthpur , District Koriya Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Forest, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Principal Chief Conservator Of Forest Chhattisgarh, Aranya Bhavan Medical College Road Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Conservator Of Forest Forest Circle Sarguja District Sarguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate For State : Mr. Dashrathi Prajapati, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 29.01.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH -2- “i. To kindly issue a writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders quashing the impugned order dated 22/09/2017 (ANNEXURE P/1) passed by the respondent no. 3 with all consequential benefits. ii. Any other order that may be deemed fit and just may also kindly be made including cost of the petition.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order of compulsory retirement dated 22.09.2017 has already been cancelled by the Review Committee vide order dated 03.10.2018 and the petitioner has been reinstated in service. He would further submit that with regard to the arrears of salary, the Review Committee held that the period from 22.09.2017 to 03.10.2018 would be treated as ‘no work, no pay’. He would contend that the order passed by the Review Committee with regard to the arrears of salary is bad in law and contrary to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shobha Ram Raturi V. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and others, Civil Appeal No.11325 of 2011. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Prajapati, the learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Pali. He would submit that as the petitioner was not in service, he is not entitled to receive the arrears of salary. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents available on the record. 3 5. Admittedly, at the relevant time, the petitioner was posted as Deputy Forest Range Officer and an order of compulsory retirement was passed by the competent authority on 22.09.2017. The matter was referred to the Review Committee and the Committee vide order dated 03.10.2018 cancelled the order of compulsory retirement and consequently, the petitioner was reinstated in service. The Committee passed a specific order with regard to the arrears of salary and held that the period from 22.09.2017 to 03.10.2018 would be treated as ‘no work, no pay. 6. In the matter of Shobha Ram Raturi (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with a similar issue held that after cancellation or quashing of the order of retirement, the Government servant would be entitled to all consequential benefits. It is also observed that the fault lies with the State Government in not having utilized the services of the government servant. The relevant para is reproduced herein below:- “The denial of back wages to the appellant by the High Court vide its order dated 14.09.2010 was assailed by the appellant by filing Letters Patent Appeal No. 489 of 2011. The High Court rejected the claim of the appellant, while dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal on 26.5.2011. The orders dated 14.09.2010 and 26.5.2011 passed by the High Court limited to the issue of payment of back wages, are subject matter of challenge before this Court. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the controversy, we are satisfied, that after the impugned order of retirement -4- dated 31.12.2002 was set aside, the appellant was entitled to all consequential benefits. The fault lies with the respondents in not having utilised the services of the appellant for the period from 1.1.2003 to 31.12.2005. Had the appellant been allowed to continue in service, he would have readily discharged his duties. Having restrained him from rendering his services with effect from 1.1.2003 to 31.12.2005, the respondent cannot be allowed to press the self serving plea of denying him wages for the period in question, on the plea of the principle of “no work no pay”. 7. Taking into consideration the facts of the present case and the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shobha Ram Raturi (supra), the order dated 22.09.2017 passed by respondent No. 3 is hereby quashed. The respondent authorities are directed to make payment of the arrears of salary and to calculate the salary of the petitioner accordingly. 8. In view of the above, the instant petition is allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha