1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8658 of 2022 Order Reserved on 20.2.2025 Order Passed on 09.5.2025 1 - Naveen Kumar Sahu S/o Lt. Raja Ram Sahu Aged About 52 Years Working As Assistant Grade- I I I, Block Education Office, Bilaigarh, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, R/o P. O. Hasua, (Via Katgi), Tahsil Kasdol, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, P. S. And P. O. Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Directorate of Public Instructions, Indravati Bhawan, Mantralaya, P. S. and P. O. Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Divisional Joint Director Education Division, Pension Bada, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - District Education Officer Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 5 - Block Education Officer Bilaigarh, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Principal Government Higher Secondary School, Guma, Block Palari, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 7 - Principal Government Higher Secondary School, Sutiurkuli, Block Bilaigarh, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.05.16 19:19:03 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Shri Vivek Ranjan Tiwari, Senior Advocate with Shri Atul Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate For State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Order 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has questioned the inaction on the part of the respondents authorities by which they are not disbursing salary to him from the months of March, 2010 to October, 2021. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the acts of the respondents authorities by which they are not granting him benefit of promotion and other service benefits. 2. The petitioner has sought following reliefs in the present petition: “10.1 To issue appropriate writ/direction to the respondent authorities to release petitioner’s salary from March 2010 to October 2021 by extending all the benefits which the petitioner is entitled under the law. 10.2 To direct the respondent authorities to provide interest on the unpaid salary till the date of actual payment to the petitioner at the rate this Hon’ble Court may deem proper. 3 10.3 To direct the respondent authorities to grant promotional and other benefits to the petitioner from the date he became entitled, as per the law. 10.4 To provide compensation and cost of the petition to the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 10.5 To pass any other order/direction which the Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. The case, as submitted by the petitioner, is that he was appointed as Assistant Grade-III in the School Education Department way back on 21.7.1990. Initially, he was posted at Government High School, Giroudpuri, Block Kasdol, District Raipur (at present District Baloda Bazar – Bhatapara). The services of the petitioner was transferred vide order dated 30.6.2009 to the Government Higher Secondary School Guma, Block Palari, District Raipur (at present District Baloda Bazar – Bhatapara). Thereafter, the petitioner was again transferred vice order dated 30.7.2012. Later on, the petitioner was suspended (without subsistence allowance) with an allegation of absence from duty. The suspension of the petitioner was revoked on 3.11.2015 and he was transferred to Government Higher Secondary School, Sutiurkuli, Block Bilaigarh. A departmental inquiry against the petitioner is going on, however, it has not been concluded till date. However, the respondents authorities are not releasing salary and other 4 benefits to the petitioner for a very long period though the petitioner has served the department. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the petitioner was punished with minor punishment of stoppage of two increments and the suspension period was directed to be treated as duty period. Thereafter, second departmental inquiry was conducted and again the petitioner was punished with stoppage of two annual increments. The petitioner has made several representations before the authorities to release the salary, however, the same have not been decided nor his salary has been released. The last pay certificate (LPC) and service record of the petitioner has not been sent to the present place of his posting, as such in absence of the last pay certificate the authorities are not releasing the salary of the petitioner. No plausible explanation has been given by the authorities regarding non-disbursement of salary to the petitioner for the aforesaid period. It is high handedness of the respondents authorities by which they are not disbursing the salary to the petitioner. 5. Shri Vivek Ranjan Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already been punished with minor punishment and his service has been directed to be continued. Due to non-availability of the last pay certificate, the petitioner is not getting salary and other service benefits. The juniors of the petitioner were promoted 5 to the post of Assistant Grade-II, whereas the petitioner is still working as Assistant Grade-III. It was urged by learned Senior Counsel that even after the department is of the view that there are absence due to which the petitioner is not being given salary, the petitioner submits that his absence may be considered as leave. The petitioner has also submitted attendance sheet from which it is evident that the unauthorised absence which the respondents authorities are stating is in fact not the unauthorised absence. The petitioner has not made any regular absence. 6. On the other hand, Ms. Shailja Shukla, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the State submits that the petitioner is an employee who has remained absent for a long period. Due to his long absence, departmental inquiry was initiated and he has been punished with minor punishment in two departmental inquiries. The absence of the petitioner was found proved and hence the petitioner is not entitled for the salary for the period of unauthorised absence made by the petitioner. Two departmental inquiries and the orders of punishments go to show that in fact the petitioner was guilty of unauthorised absence and as such he has been punished with minor punishment in two departmental inquiries. 7. The unauthorised long absence cannot be converted into leave. When the petitioner was transferred, instead of joining new transferred place of posting, he remained absent, as such 6 first departmental inquiry was conducted against the petitioner and thereafter minor punishments were imposed upon him. In the departmental inquiry, unauthorised absence has been proved and as such the petitioner is not being granted salary for which he is seeking a direction. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record with due care. 9. From perusal of the record, it seems that for unauthorised absence the petitioner was punished twice while imposing minor penalty of stoppage of two annual increments with non- cumulative effect. In the second departmental inquiry also, minor punishment of stoppage of two annual increments was passed. All the aforesaid departmental inquiries were initiated on the ground that the petitioner has not given his joining upon his transfer and as such the aforesaid orders have been passed. So far as unauthorised absence on account of non- joining upon transferred place is concerned, for the same the petitioner has already been punished twice by stoppage of annual increments. However, the long unauthorised absence from March, 2010 to October, 2021 cannot be converted into leave. Since the petitioner has unauthorisedly remained absent from his duties for such a long period, the same cannot be converted into any type of leave. The petitioner has dis- obeyed the orders passed by this Court as such he was punished in the departmental inquiry which goes to suggest 7 his disobedience and unauthorised absence was taken care by the authorities. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was not a case of long absence of 11 years. The petitioner has joined duties and in support of that he has filed voluminous copies of attendance sheets to show that he was present in his duties. Since he was present for his duties for a considerable period, therefore, that aspect has to be considered for grant of his salary for the period in which he remained present as per his attendance sheets. The petitioner has made several applications/representations before the authorities concerned and for conversion of the absence period into leave, however, it has not been considered till date, as such learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the authorities may be directed to consider his applications/representations for grant of his salaries/back wages for the period in which he was present for his duties and which is evident from the attendance sheets annexed with the writ petition. 10. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, this Court is of the view that the respondents authorities may consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of salary for the period in which, according to the petitioner, he was present for his duties subject to verification of the attendance sheets and other relevant documents and to pass appropriate orders. This will confine only to the extent by which the petitioner is showing himself to be present through his attendance sheets, 8 however, the attendance sheets should be verified and only if it is found that the presence marked in the attendance sheets is genuine then only the authorities concerned may consider the applications/representations of the petitioner for grant of his salary and for considering for conversion of the period of absence into leave. However, it is made clear that this Court has not passed any order for grant of salary for long period of about 11 years. 11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Gopal Singh