1 2025:CGHC:61608 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8753 of 2023 1 - Rajendra Kumar Thakur S/o Late Mr. N.R. Thakur, Aged About 39 Years Post Teacher (Local Body), Posted At Govt. Upper Primary School Jabkasa, Block Manpur, District : Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki, Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Director, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Joint Director, Education, Durg Division District Durg Chhattisgarh. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 5 - District Education Officer, District Mohla Manpur Chauki, Durg Division Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 9044 of 2023 1 - Ramu Lal Sinha S/o. Mr. Dayaram Sinha, Aged About 45 Years Post - Assistant Teacher (Local Body), Posted At Government Primary School Pardoni, Block Manpur, District - Mohla Manpur Chauki, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Director, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Joint Director, Education, Durg Division, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. 5 - District Education Officer, District - Mohla Manpur Chauki, Durg, Division, Chhattigarh. --- Respondent(s) 3 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Hari Om Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 17/12/2025 1. Since common question of facts and law is involved in both the cases, as such, both the petitions are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners have prayed for certain reliefs in the writ petitions. Though there are some sort of differences in respect of prayer made by the petitioners in all the petitions, however, in sum and substance, the reliefs are altogether similar and identical. The reliefs prayed in WPS No. 8753/2023 (Rajendra Kumar Thakur vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & Ors) are quoted hereinbelow in order to consider these cases and to decide the same. “i.The Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to quash/set aside the order dated 18/7/23. ii. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to reconsider and absorb the petitioner to Education Department, with effect from 1/7/2018 on completion of 8 years of services, by counting pervious service with all consequential benefit, iii. Any other relief which the Hon'ble court deems just and proper in the interest of justice..” 4 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the previous service rendered by the petitioners is not being taken into account for the purpose of their absorption with effect from 01.07.2018, which is arbitrary and unjustified. It is further submitted that the petitioners were initially appointed as Shiksha Karmi, Grade-III and, thereafter, upon obtaining due and prior permission from the competent authorities, the petitioners, namely Rajendra Kumar Thakur and Ramu Lal Sinha, duly participated in the subsequent recruitment process for the posts of Shiksha Karmi, Grade-II and Shiksha Karmi, Grade-III respectively. However, despite their lawful participation and appointment pursuant to such recruitment, the period of service rendered by the petitioners as Shiksha Karmi, Grade-II and Grade-III has not been considered for the purpose of absorption. Learned counsel contends that since the petitioners had taken due permission from the concerned respondent authorities and their service has been continuous and uninterrupted, they are entitled to the benefit of counting their entire past service and, consequently, to be granted absorption with effect from 01.07.2018. He further submits that this Court vide order dated 30.07.2019 passed in WPS No. 5536/2019 has observed as under:- “5. This Court does not find any strong reason or ground on the part of the Department for not accepting the past service of the petitioners for the purpose of absorption particularly when the department has 5 counted the past service for the purpose of grant of revised pay scale. 6. Given the aforesaid fact, let the case of the petitioners be scrutinized by respondents 1 & 2 and an appropriate order be passed as to why the past service of the petitioners cannot be counted for the purpose of absorption when the Department itself has counted the said period for the purpose of revised pay scale. Let an order be passed by respondents 1 & 2 within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It shall be the responsibility of the petitioners to apprise respondents 1 & 2 so far as the order passed by this Court is concerned. The petitioners would be at liberty to file a suitable representation, if they so want, supported with all relevant documents.” 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State submits that upon a careful perusal of the documents placed on record, it is not evident or clearly discernible as to whether the requisite No Objection Certificate (NOC) was ever obtained by the petitioner, as the record does not contain any cogent material or specific document to conclusively establish the grant of such permission by the competent authority. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and upon a 6 careful appreciation of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is evident that prior permission had duly been obtained from the concerned respondent authorities; therefore, the impugned order dated 18.07.2023, having been passed without proper justification and in disregard of the said permission, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and is accordingly hereby quashed. 7. The competent authorities are hereby directed to revive and give effect to the earlier order dated 1.7.2018, specifically for the purpose of facilitating the absorption of the petitioners in accordance with law within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 8. Accordingly, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat