1 2025:CGHC:18423 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4940 of 2017 1 - Nand Lal Soni S/o Khubu Ram Soni, Aged About 38 Years Presently Working As Assistant Teacher Panchayat , Government Primary School, Dumarpali, Janpad Panchayat Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Govind Dewangan, Advocate For State : Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, Panel Lawyer For respondent No.2 &3 : Mr. Ali Asgar, Advocate along with Mr. A. Laxmidhar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 23.04.2025 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 the entire records in relates to the case of the petitioner from the possession of respondents for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Raigarh to consider the candidature of the petitioner for -2- grant of payment of salary amount from 18.04.2016 to 05.01.2017 with all other consequential benefit of services along with interest. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief/relief'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 petitioners.” 2. Mr. Dewangan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that at the relevant time in the year 2016, the petitioner was holding the post of Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) at Government Primary School, Dumarpali, Janpad Panchayat Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.). He would further submit that the services of the petitioner were transferred from Raigarh to Kabirdham vide order dated 18.04.2016 issued by respondent No.2/the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Raigarh as he was found surplus. He would also submit that the petitioner filed Writ Petition (S) No.2627 of 2016 challenging the transfer order on the ground that the wife of the petitioner was posted in District Raigarh. The petition was disposed of vide order dated 05.07.2016, the effect and operation of the transfer order was stayed for a period of three weeks and the petitioner was permitted to make a representation before the respondent authorities within a period of 10 days. Mr. Dewangan would contend that the petitioner made a representation before respondent No.2 and it was rejected vide order dated 19.08.2016. Mr. Dewangan would further contend that as the order of transfer was bad in law and without jurisdiction, the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, 3 Raigarh recalled it on 04.01.2017. It is contended that the petitioner joined services on 05.01.2017. Mr. Dewangan would argue that the petitioner has not been paid salary from 18.04.2016 till 05.01.2017 though he could not join the services on account of the illegal transfer order. He would pray for a direction to the respondent authorities to make payment of salary for the aforesaid period. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Asgar, the learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 & 3 would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Dewangan. He would submit that the services of the petitioner were transferred vide order dated 18.04.2016. The petitioner filed WP(S) No.2627 of 2016 wherein protection was granted for a period of three weeks only and the representation made by the petitioner was rejected by respondent No.2 vide order dated 19.08.2016. He would further submit that after the rejection of the representation, the petitioner failed to join services and he joined his services on 05.01.2017. He would also submit that the petitioner also failed to challenge the order dated 19.08.2016, whereby his representation was rejected. He would contend that the petitioner is not entitled to get the salary from 19.08.2016 till 04.01.2017. 4. Mr. Bajpayee, the learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would support the contentions made by Mr. Asgar. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the -4- documents placed on the record. 6. It appears that the petitioner was transferred from Raigarh to Kabirdham vide order dated 18.04.2016 issued by respondent No.2. The order was held to be without jurisdiction and ultimately it was withdrawn by the authority itself on 04.01.2017. The petitioner challenged the transfer order on the ground that his wife was working in the District Raigarh and a protective order was passed in his favour on 05.07.2016 for a period of three weeks. The petitioner made a representation and it was rejected by respondent No.2 on 19.08.2016. 7. From a perusal of the above-stated chronology, it is clear that the petitioner would get protection from 18.04.2016 till 19.08.2016 as the representation of the petitioner was rejected on 19.8.2016. 8. As the petitioner failed to challenge the order dated 19.08.2016 and thereafter joined his services on 05.01.2017, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner would not be entitled to claim the salary from 19.8.2016 to 5.1.2017. 9. Respondents No.2 & 3 are directed to make payment of salary from 18.04.2016 till 19.08.2016. It is directed that the rest of the period from 20.08.2016 to 04.01.2017 shall be adjusted against the leave available in the service account of the petitioner. 10. With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha