1 2025:CGHC:61442-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 911 of 2025 Neha Sharma W/o Dr Manish Sharma, Aged About 43 Years Lecturer (Lb) Posted At Govt. H.S. School Sirgitti Block Bilha District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director, Directorate Of Chhattisgarh Public Instruction, Indravati Bhawan, Second Floor, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Joint Director, Education Division Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - District Education Officer, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Principal Govt. Higher Secondary School Sirgitti, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) 6 - Smt. Hemant Tondon Lecturer (Lb) Govt. H.S. School Sirgitti Block Bilha District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha and Mr. Vinod Kumar Deshmukh, Advocates. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.12.17 17:14:20 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 17.12.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha and Mr. Vinod Kumar Deshmukh, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Praveen Das, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondents / State. 2. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 16.10.2025 passed in W.P. (S) No. 11989/2025 (Neha Sharma vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) by which, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein. 3. Brief facts of the case are that appellant is working as Lecturer (Biology) in the Government Education Department. She was initially appointed as Lecturer (Panchayat) Biology on 06.07.2010 and was later absorbed in the Education Department with effect from 01.07.2018. Pursuant to a transfer order dated 22.08.2019, she was transferred to District Bilaspur and, after successive posting orders dated 17.10.2019 and 30.10.2019, was finally posted at Government Higher Secondary School, Sirgitti, where she joined on 06.11.2019 and has been continuously discharging her duties since then. At the time of her joining, no sanctioned post of Lecturer (Biology) was vacant at Sirgitti therefore, her salary was being drawn from Government Higher Secondary School, Jondhra. Subsequently, upon the retirement of one Lecturer 3 (Biology), namely Shri Madhukar Kaushik, on 30.11.2022, a sanctioned post fell vacant at Sirgitti. The Principal of Government H.S. School, Sirgitti, duly informed the authorities through communications dated 02.12.2022 and 22.12.2022 and requested that the appellant’s salary be drawn from the school where she was actually working. Accepting the said position, the District Education Officer, by order dated 15.02.2023, directed that the appellant’s salary be drawn from Government H.S. School, Sirgitti. Thereafter, despite there being no further vacant post, a junior Lecturer (Biology), the private respondent, was transferred to Government H.S. School, Sirgitti, and her salary was being drawn from another institution. Aggrieved thereby, the private respondent filed W.P. (S) No. 8710/2025 seeking disbursement of her salary from Sirgitti. This Court, by order dated 01.09.2025, merely directed the authorities to seek instructions and did not issue any direction for shifting or alteration of salary disbursement. However, misusing and misrepresenting the said order, the Principal issued an order dated 03.09.2025 (Annexure P/1) falsely stating that this Court had directed that the salary of the private respondent be drawn from Government H.S. School, Sirgitti, and consequently shifted the appellant’s salary back to Government H.S. School, Jondhra. The appellant was neither impleaded nor afforded any opportunity of hearing in the writ petition filed by the private respondent, and the fact that the appellant was senior in appointment as well as in joining at Sirgitti was completely ignored. 4 The appellant, being aggrieved by the arbitrary, discriminatory, and unconstitutional action taken in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and in blatant disregard of the order of this Court, approached the Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 11989/2025 seeking quashing of order dated 03.09.2025 and restoration of salary disbursement from Sirgitti. However, the learned Single Judge, by the impugned order dated 16.10.2025, disposed of the writ petition by misconstruing the prayer and without appreciating the material on record and the real grievance of the appellant, thereby giving rise to the present appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned order and altering the mode of salary disbursement of the appellant is arbitrary, illegal, and unconstitutional, and therefore unsustainable in the eyes of law. It is submitted that this Court, in W.P. (S) No. 8710/2025, vide order dated 01.09.2025, had issued only a limited direction to the authorities to seek instructions and had not passed any direction whatsoever for shifting or re-fixing the salary of any Lecturer. However, the Principal, by order dated 03.09.2025, deliberately and falsely stated that this Court had directed that the salary of the private respondent, Smt. Hemant Tondon, be drawn from Government Higher Secondary School, Sirgitti, and on that false premise, directed that the appellant’s salary be shifted to Government Higher Secondary School, Jondhra. In fact, no such direction was ever issued by this Court and thus the order of this 5 Court has been misused, fraudulently misrepresented, and openly flouted by the Principal to extend undue benefit to the private respondent. 5. It is further submitted that the appellant, who has been continuously working at Government Higher Secondary School, Sirgitti, was gravely aggrieved by order dated 03.09.2025 whereby her salary was shifted to another school on an incorrect, misleading, and non-existent direction allegedly issued by this Hon’ble Court. The impugned action has been taken solely to accommodate the private respondent by shifting her salary from Government Higher Secondary School, Jondhra, to Government Higher Secondary School, Sirgitti, despite the appellant being senior and lawfully entitled to have her salary drawn from the place of her actual posting. The writ proceedings culminating in the impugned order have been obtained by suppressing material facts and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, as the appellant, whose rights are directly and adversely affected, was neither impleaded as a party nor afforded any opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Single Bench disposed of the writ petition on an erroneous and misconceived premise by observing that the petitioner had merely claimed salary and that the same would be paid within a month, whereas the real grievance of the appellant was never with regard to non-payment of salary but with respect to the illegal and arbitrary shifting of salary disbursement, which has the effect of 6 treating the appellant as surplus at Government Higher Secondary School, Sirgitti and exposing her to an imminent and unwarranted risk of transfer. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and submits in compliance of Court’s order dated 11.12.2025, the Officer In-Charge of the case on behalf of respondents No.1 to 5/ State has filed his personal affidavit, perusal of which goes to show that as per the documents filed along with the writ petition, the present appellant- Neha Sharma, was initially posted at Government High School, Bachhali Khurd, Block Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.), vide order dated 17.10.2019, which was a composite transfer order relating to 54 teachers, wherein the appellant was placed at Serial No. 22. It is submitted that during the transfer session of the year 2019–2020, several teachers were transferred, however, it was subsequently realized that sanctioned posts, as per the transfer orders, were not available at the respective places of posting. Consequently, instructions were sought from the competent authority and, till a final decision was taken, a temporary reshuffling arrangement was made. In pursuance thereof, the appellant was posted at Government High School, Bachhali Khurd as part of such interim arrangement. 7. It is further submitted that the said order dated 17.10.2019 was 7 thereafter modified in respect of the appellant, and purely as an administrative and teaching arrangement, she was posted at Government Higher Secondary School, Sirgitti, District Bilaspur (C.G.), vide order dated 30.10.2019, where she is presently working. 8. Learned State counsel submits that from a conjoint reading of Annexures P/4 and P/5 annexed with the writ petition, it is evident that the appellant’s present posting at Government Higher Secondary School, Sirgitti, is not against a regular sanctioned post but is only by way of an arrangement made in the exigencies of service. Therefore, her salary is not liable to be drawn from the present place of working, i.e., Government Higher Secondary School, Sirgitti. Learned State counsel further submits that subsequent administrative developments led to the promotion of Shri Rajesh Kumar Soni, Lecturer (Mathematics), as Principal, Government High School, Bhathari, District Mungeli (C.G.), and the resultant vacancy was filled by transfer of the private respondent, Ms. Hemant Tandan, vide transfer order dated 30.09.2022. It is submitted that there exists only one sanctioned post of Lecturer (Biology) at Government Higher Secondary School, Sirgitti, District Bilaspur (C.G.), and the said post stands occupied by the private respondent, Ms. Hemant Tandan, who was transferred against the vacant post and is drawing her salary therefrom. It is lastly submitted that the salary of the appellant, 8 who is working at Government Higher Secondary School, Sirgitti purely on account of an arrangement and not against a sanctioned post, cannot legally be drawn from the said school. The private respondent, being posted against the sole sanctioned post of Lecturer (Biology) at Sirgitti, is rightly drawing her salary from the said institution, including in terms of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition (S) No. 8710/2025. Hence, the action of the respondents is justified, legal, and in accordance with the applicable service rules and administrative instructions. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with the writ appeal. 10. Perusal of the impugned order goes to show that the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner primarily on the premise that the grievance of the petitioner was confined only to non-payment of salary and that, since the State authorities had already initiated steps for release of the same, no further adjudication was required. 11. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon careful perusal of the record, this Court finds that the learned Single Judge has rightly disposed of Writ Petition (S) No. 11989/2025. The impugned order dated 16.10.2025 reflects that the primary grievance of the writ petitioner pertained to the release of her salary, and the State authorities had already initiated steps to ensure that the same is paid to her without any hindrance. 9 It is also evident from the material on record that the posting of the appellant at Government Higher Secondary School, Sirgitti, is by way of an administrative and teaching arrangement and not against a sanctioned post. There exists only one sanctioned post of Lecturer (Biology) at the said school, which stands duly occupied by the private respondent, who has been transferred against the vacant post and is lawfully drawing her salary therefrom. 12. This Court further finds that the arrangement under which the appellant is presently working does not confer upon her any vested or enforceable right to claim salary disbursement from Government Higher Secondary School, Sirgitti. The action of the respondents in drawing the appellant’s salary from another institution, in accordance with the sanctioned strength and administrative exigencies, cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. No case of violation of statutory provisions or infringement of constitutional rights is made out so as to warrant interference. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet