1 2025:CGHC:18234 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7803 of 2018 1 - Shatruhan Lal Verma S/o Shri Brijlal Verma Aged About 52 Years Posted As Peon In The Office Of Deputy Director, Fisheries, Raipur, District Raipur, Civil And Revenue District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Fisheries Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Fisheries Department, Indrawati Bhavan New Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Deputy Director, Fisheries Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Palash Agrawal, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For State : Shri Pramod Shrivastava, Dy.G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 22.04.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:- SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- “10.1. That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the entire records in connection of the petitioner's cases. 10.2. That the Hon'ble court be further pleased to quash the order dated 22.09.2018 (Ann.P/1) passed by the Respondent No.2 and direct the Respondent No.2 to re- consider the case of the petitioner regarding grant of salary, allowances and other service benefit to the petitioner during suspension period. 10.3. Any other order that the Hon'ble Court deems fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case be also passed. 10.4. That the cost of the petition be also awarded to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, at the relevant time, the petitioner was posted as a Peon under respondent No.3. He would contend that an FIR was registered against the petitioner for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 327 of IPC. He would further contend that on account of the registration of the FIR, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 16.3.2009. He would further submit that, in Criminal Revision No.62 of 2011, the High Court, vide order dated 18.2.2011, upheld the conviction and punishment till the rising of the Court but observed that the sentence would not affect the service career of the petitioner. He would also submit that the petitioner made a representation before the respondent authorities, claiming therein the salary of the suspension period, 3 but it was rejected on the ground that there was no specific observation in Cr.R. No.62 of 2011 with regard to salary. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that the conviction and sentence of the petitioner have been maintained in Criminal Revision No. 62 of 2011. He would further submit that, while disposing of the criminal revision, this Court observed that the conviction and sentence would not affect the service career of the petitioner, but no direction was issued with regard to payment of salary of the suspension period. He would also submit that the authority concerned has passed a well- reasoned order. 4. Heard counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 5. The petitioner was placed under suspension on account of the registration of an FIR on 16.3.2009. He was convicted and sentenced by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class and the order was affirmed by the learned Sessions Court. The petitioner preferred a criminal revision and the conviction and sentence were affirmed, but it was observed that the sentence would not affect the service career. A bare reading of the order passed in criminal revision would make it clear that there was no observation with regard to the payment of salary of the suspension period. The -4- findings recorded by respondent No.2 in the order dated 22.9.2018 appear to be erroneous. Therefore, the order passed by respondent No.2 dated 22.9.2018 is hereby quashed. Respondent No.2 is directed to reconsider the representation afresh, after affording a due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 6. With the aforesaid observation(s), the petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi