1 2025:CGHC:55444 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8102 of 2018 1 - Ajeet Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Mahendra Kumar Gupta, Aged About 27 Years Working As Technical Assistant, Chhattisgarh Council Of Science And Technology, Vigyan Bhawan, Vidhan Sabha Road, Daldal Seoni, Raipur, R/o Shankar Nagar Kachana Housing Board, Block No. 12, Room No. 265, Police Station Khamardih, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Technical Education Science And Technology, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director General Of Chhattisgarh Council Of Science And Technology, Vigyan Bhawan, Vidhan Sabha Road, Daldal Seoni, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhupendra Singh, Advocate For respondent No.1 : Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, P. L. For Respondent No.2 : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Order on Board 13/11/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/direction/order for granting salary to the petitioner as per the order dated 26.7.2013. 2 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/direction/order for granting arrears of salary w.e.f. April 2017 with 18% p.a. interest. 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and cost of the petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Technical Assistant by respondent No.2 on a contract basis. As per the terms and conditions mentioned in the appointment order, the petitioner is entitled to a consolidated salary of Rs.20,000/- per month. The appointment was made sometime in the year 2013 and the petitioner was paid the said consolidated amount until March, 2017, but all of a sudden his salary was reduced to Rs.10,800/- per month effective from April, 2017. The petitioner has continued to receive this reduced salary of Rs.10,800/- up to October 2018. The petitioner was astonished to find that his salary had been unilaterally reduced to Rs.10,800/- without being afforded any opportunity of hearing nor was any departmental enquiry conducted. Therefore, this writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief. 3. Learned State counsel submits that the dispute is between the petitioner and respondent No.2, State is a formal party. 4. Dr. Pande, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the appointment of the petitioner was made by the then Director General of respondent No.2. A note-sheet was prepared in that regard, and thereafter the appointment order was issued to the petitioner. He submits that respondent No.2 is a society under the Societies Registration Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 1973”) and is a 100% grant-in- aid society receiving funds from the State Government. He further submits that in order to fulfill its requirements, six posts of Technical Assistant were proposed and forwarded to the State Government for sanction in the year 2013. At that point of time, since there was an anticipation that the posts would be sanctioned by the State Government, the appointment of the petitioner was made for the time being. Later 3 on, the State Government refused to grant sanction to 6 posts of Technical Assistant sometime in the year 2017. Apart from this, the appointment of the petitioner was not made in accordance with the service rules governing the terms and conditions of service of the employees of respondent No.2. He invited attention of this Court to the prescribed method of recruitment, which clearly mandates that appointments must be made either through direct appointment via competitive examination or by selection or by both apart from the other mode of appointment. He further submits that in the case in hand, the petitioner was directly appointed without there being any competitive examination looking to his financial condition by the then Director General of respondent No.2. Thereafter, an enquiry was also conducted, and the aforementioned facts were revealed, in fact the petitioner was not removed from service, rather he was retained under the daily wage collector rate, therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Perusal of the record would indicate that a note-sheet was prepared by respondent No.2, in which it was observed that it would take some time for appointment to the post of Technical Assistant by advertisement, and the need required that the appointment should be made immediately, therefore, looking to the financial condition of the petitioner, and sympathetically he was appointed. The record also indicates that the pleadings of the return show that the proposal sent by respondent No.2 with regard to the grant of sanction for 6 posts of Technical Assistant was not approved by the State government. The service rules governing the services appended with the writ petition also indicate that the recruitment to the service, after the recommendation of this rule, shall be by the following method: first is by direct recruitment through competitive examination or by selection, or by both, apart from any other mode of recruitment. Admittedly, the petitioner was not appointed by a competitive examination or by publishing an advertisement, and he was directly appointed looking to his financial condition sympathetically, which is also reflected from the note-sheet appended with the writ petition, the State Government has not 4 approved the sanctioned post, therefore, the petitioner was retained at the daily wage collector rate instead of removing him from the services. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the action of the respondent in reducing the salary of the petitioner. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Parul PARUL MITTAL Digitally signed by PARUL MITTAL Date: 2025.11.14 17:03:02 +0530