1 2025:CGHC:2149-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 884 of 2024 Smt. Mamta Sharma W/o Lakhan Lal Sharma Aged About 65 Years R/o Subhash Nagar, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Director Public Instructions, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Collector Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 4. District Education OfÏcer Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ...Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General & Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.01.14 17:40:48 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 14 . 01. 202 5 1. Heard Mr. H.B. Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Swati Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General along with Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents/State. 2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 19.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 3597 of 2022 (Smt. Mamta Sharma vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner herein. 3. Learned Senior Advocate for the appellant submits that it is not in dispute that appellant was retired from the post of Lecturer on 30.09.2020 and was allowed to work from 01.10.2020 to the post of Lecturer due to reappointment in service. The reappointment necessarily connotes that it is from the next day of superannuation, therefore, the conduct of respondents ought to have been seen instead of asking for formal order of reappointment, because the date of reappointment is already fixed as next date of retirement by superannuation, therefore, the learned Single Judge has committed an error in not granting salary to the appellant for work 3 done, hence, the order of learned Single Judge dated 19.11.2024 is liable to be set aside and it be held that appellant is entitle for salary for work done from the date of reappointment i.e. 01.10.2020 to 30.04.2021 i.e. end of education session, for which she has work done. 4. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Advocate for the appellant that according to Section 22 of the Code on Wages, 2019, which reads as under: “22. Deductions for services rendered. A deduction under clause (d) or clause (e) of sub-section (2) of section 18 shall not be made from the wages of an employee, unless the house- accommodation amenity or service has been accepted by him as a term of employment or otherwise and such deduction shall not exceed an amount equivalent to the value of the house- accommodation amenity or service supplied and shall be subject to such conditions as the appropriate Government may impose.” 5. Learned Senior Advocate for the appellant states that in view of the above, it is clear that no deduction or withholding wages can be done unless it is legal. The learned Single Judge has also failed to see circulars dated 30.01.2024, 07.02.2024 and 03.04.2024 filed in the case on 18.09.2024, which do not require that any order for reappointment is to be waited, therefore, continuation of service is automatic, if consent was given by the concerned employee, if consent was not given she cannot be reappointment has been mentioned in circular, therefore, after giving consent by the appellant which was accepted, therefore, denial of sale deed from the date of reappointment i.e. 01.10.2020 to 30.04.2021 is illegal on the ground of let issuance of reappointment order. Hence, the 4 order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 19.11.2024 is untenable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, in which no interference is called for. He further submits that the appellant worked on her respective post at respondent No. 3 institution from 19.03.2021 till the end of the academic session, i.e. 30.04.2021. He contended that the appellant joined the school on 19.03.2021. He further stated that the respondent authorities had already made payment to the appellant for the period from 19.03.2021 to 30.04.2021. 7. It is further submitted by the learned State counsel that if the appellant worked from 01.10.2020 at respondent No. 3 School and in the absence of any ofÏcial order, it was her own choice; thus, she cannot claim monetary benefits for that period without there being any specific order. He lastly submitted that there was no occasion for the appellant to work as Lecturer at respondent No. 3 school in the absence of any ofÏcial order. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and materials available on record. 9. The appellant was working with respondent No. 3/School as Lecturer and the she was retired from service on 30.09.2020. It appears that after retirement, the appellant joined the school to teach students on 01.10.2020, however, there is no document to demonstrate that the appellant was legally permitted to join the school to teach students. The 5 order with regard to the reappointment in favor of the appellant was issued on 19.03.2021 by respondent No. 2. The appellant rejoined the service on 19.03.2021 and was permitted to work till the end of the academic session i.e. on 30.04.2021. 10. While passing the impugned order, the learned Single Judge held that it is not in dispute that the salary/honorarium for the period from 19.03.2021 to 30.04.2021 has already been paid to the appellant by the respondent authorities, but the claim of the appellant for salary/honorarium for the period from 01.10.2020 to 18.03.2021, is not supported with any documentary evidence. Therefore, the claim made by the appellant was rightly rejected by the respondent authorities. 11. Considering the pleadings made in writ appeal, submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also considering the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. 12. Accordingly, the present writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan