1 2025:CGHC:7597 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9090 of 2023 Chhattisgarh Social Audit /Block Social Audit Conferrer (Panchayat and Rural Development Department), Old D.R.D.A. Bhawan Collector Premises Raipur Chhattisgarh through its President Satyam Patel, Son of Ajay Patel, Aged About 31 Years, posted as Block Social Audit Conferrer (Korba), resident of Vilalge Surda, Post Devri, P.S. City Kotwali, Tahsil and District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate of Chhattisgarh Social Audit Unit Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Old D.R.D.O. Building, Collector Premises Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Additional Director Chhattisgarh Social Audit Unit Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Old D.R.D.O. Building, Collector Premises Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Union of India Through its Director, MANREGA, Ministry of Rural Development, Krishi Bhawan New Delhi ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Om Prakash Sahu, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 3 : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Dy. Govt. Advocate For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.02.13 10:01:36 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 12.02.2025 1. Heard Mr. Om Prakash Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the State/respondents No.1 to 3 and Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India/respondent No.4. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following relief(s):- “(i) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned order dated 03.10.2023 and 09.10.2023 passed by the respondent No.2 (Annexure P- 1), in the interest of justice. (ii) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent State to continuously allow their joining on respective post from the date of removing order with all consequential benefit as early as possible, in the interest of justice. (iii) That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly grant any other writ/writs, order/orders, relief/reliefs in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon’ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 3 3. Learned counsel for the State/respondents No.1 to 3 submits that they have already reinstated the petitioner, as such, the writ petition become infructuous. 4. Upon which, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner has been reinstated, however, the salary part of the petitioner has not been considered by the respondent authorities. 5. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the prayer clause, it seems that the appropriate prayer has not been made, however, it is apparent that salary part in respect of the petitioner has not been considered by the respondent authorities, the petitioner is directed to file appropriate representation before the respondent authorities ventilating his grievance and the concerned respondent authority is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of salary for the period when he was illegally removed from services and pass a speaking order in this regard expeditiously. 6. With the aforementioned observation/direction, instant writ petition is disposed of. - Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh