1 2025:CGHC:58992 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5488 of 2023 Archana Tomer D/o Shri Gulab Singh Tomer, Aged About 35 Years R/o Near Moon Light English School, Gorkha Colony, New Shanti Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner versus 1 - The State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - The Managing Director, State Project Office, Samagra Shiksha Vibhag, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3 - The Mission Director, State Project Office, Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 4 - The District Project Coordinator, Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 5 - The District Project Coordinator, Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 6 - Vikas Khand Strot Center, Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Arang, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 7 - Vikas Khand Strot Center, Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Basna, District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. For Respondents No.2 to 7 : Ms. Akanksha Jain, Advocate YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.12.04 19:25:25 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 04.12.2025 1. The present petition has been filed with the following relief(s) :- “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records from the authorities concerned with regard to present case, for kind perusal. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court further may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent authorities to release the dues salary of the petitioner for the period from April 2017 to 28.07.2017 (03 months 28 days) to the tune of Rs. 86,500/- along with interest. 10.3 Any other relief, which may be deemed, fit by this Hon'ble Court just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be provided in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, being a citizen of India, is entitled to all protections and guarantees enshrined under Part-III of the Constitution of India. He submits that it is an undisputed fact on record that the petitioner was appointed as an Additional Block Resource Person (CWSN) and posted at Block Arang, District Raipur, where she continuously discharged her duties for a period of 03 months and 28 days (from 01.04.2017 to 28.07.2017). Thereafter, the State Project Office, Raipur, vide order dated 24.07.2017, transferred her services from Arang to Basna, District Mahasamund, which was duly 3 communicated to her by the District Mission Coordinator, Raipur, on 29.07.2017. In compliance thereof, the petitioner submitted her joining report on 29.07.2017 before the District Mission Coordinator, Mahasamund, and subsequently at Vikas Khand Strot, Basna. It is further submitted that thereafter, vide order dated 06.09.2017, the petitioner was appointed as Audiologist and posted at Government Hospital, Mahasamund, pursuant to which she tendered her resignation from the previous assignment on 07.09.2017. Learned counsel contends that despite having worked for the aforesaid period under Respondent No. 06, the petitioner’s legitimate dues for the period April 2017 to 28.07.2017 have not been released, though she has repeatedly approached the authorities through various representations. It is urged that similarly placed employees have been paid, yet the petitioner alone has been arbitrarily denied her dues, thereby violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 to 7 submits that the matter regarding payment of dues is still under process. 4. However, at a later stage of hearing, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 7 submits that, according to the stand of the department, the petitioner is not entitled to any salary for the said period and therefore no relief can be granted in her favour. 4 5. Considering the submissions of both the sides, and taking into account the fact that the petitioner had admittedly worked during the relevant period, and further noting that the respondents have not passed any reasoned or speaking order determining the petitioner’s entitlement or otherwise, this Court is of the view that the issue cannot remain undecided indefinitely. 6. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of with a direction to respondents No. 2 to 7 to consider the petitioner’s claim and pass an appropriate, reasoned order regarding her entitlement to salary for the period in question, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh