1 / 3 2025:CGHC:21645 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 667 of 2025 1 Ramgopal Sahu S/o Late Shri Dwarika Prasad Sahu, Aged About 56 Years R/o In Front Of Shri Krishna Vihar Ashok Vihar Phase-2, Parmeshwari Gali No. 04 Chantidih, Bilaspur, (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary Department Of School Educatoon, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 Director, Lok Sikshan Sanchnalay Indrawati Bhawan Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 3 District Educaton Officer, Bilaspur, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Shri Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Shri Suyashdhar, Dy. G.A. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.05.09 17:51:17 +0530 2 / 3 09/05/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner, is seeking direction towards the authorities to consider the reinstatement of the petitioner and grant him all consequential benefits as per Rule 54 of the Fundamental Rules. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Lecturer under the respondents. He would further submit that the petitioner demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 10,000/- for which trial was conducted and the petitioner was convicted by the trial court by judgment dated 30.08.2017. On account of said conviction, the petitioner was terminated from service. In the meanwhile, the appeal preferred by the petitioner bearing CRA No. 1505 of 2017 was allowed by this court vide judgment dated 20.09.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner made “n” number of representations and requested for his reinstatement, but the same does not yield any result. The petitioner seeks a direction towards the respondents to consider his claim for reinstatement. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would also submit that it is for the employer to consider the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement. He would fairly submit that if the petitioner makes a fresh representation before the respondent authorities, an appropriate decision would be taken. 4. Heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the 3 / 3 documents and records. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner was terminated from service on account of conviction imposed by the learned trial court in a criminal case. Thereafter, the petitioner has been acquitted by this Court by judgment dated 20.09.2024 passed in CRA No. 1505 of 2017. Thereafter, the petitioner moved several representations, but till date no action has been taken. 6. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed off with a direction to the petitioner to move a fresh representation raising all the grounds which he has raised in the earlier representations within a period of 20 days from today and thereafter the respondent authorizes are directed to consider and decide the same within a period of 30 days, in accordance of law and on its own merits. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Jyoti