1 2025:CGHC:13784 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1324 of 2021 1 - Tikaram Kurrey S/o Shri Resham Lal Kurrey Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Pandripali, Janpad Panchayat Bilaigarh, Police Station Sarsiva, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh), District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, New Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Chief Executive Officer District Panchayat Balodabazar-Bhatapara, District- Balodabazar-Bhatpara (Chhattisgarh), District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Deputy Director District Panchayat, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh), District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Avadhesh Mishra, Advocate. For State : Mr. Kishan Lal Sahu, Dy. Govt. Advocate. For Res. No. 2 : Mr. Aniket Verma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order On Board 22.03.2025 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of direction to respondent No. 2 for modifying the impugned order dated 22.08.2020 providing back-wages to the petitioner in light of the order passed by this Court on 28.03.2011 in WPS No. 4449/2008 and 10.07.2020 in WPS No. 2635/2020. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was initially appointed as Secretary and posted at Gram Panchayat Pandripali Janpad Panchayat Bilaigarh (C.G.). He was suspended vide ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Date: 2025.03.22 16:46:10 +0530 2 order dated 03.01.2006. It is also case of the petitioner that the petitioner was not served with any charge-sheet for 5 years and thereafter the petitioner preferred petition before this Court bearing WPS No. 1449/2008 wherein this Court vide order dated 28.03.2011 quashed the order of suspension dated 03.01.2006 and observed that the petitioner would be entitled for all consequential benefits following the quashment of the said suspension order. He would further submit that the petitioner made representation before the respondent authorities for compliance of the order passed by this Court on 28.03.2011 but the same was ignored, therefore, the petitioner preferred another writ petition before this Court bearing WPS No. 2635/2020, wherein this Court vide order dated 10.07.2020 directed respondent No. 2 to issue necessary orders pursuance to the necessary order for reinstatement along with benefits accrued to the petitioner pursuance to the order of Sub-Divisional Officer dated 07.02.2019 within 45 days. In view of the direction issued by this Court, the respondents have only reinstated the petitioner but have not granted back-wages, therefore, he has filed the instant writ petition for grant of back-wages for the period from 2007 till the date he has reinstated. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State as well as respondent No. 2 would submit that Sub-Divisional Officer has not granted any back- wages to the petitioner and the petitioner has never challenged the same to that extent and even this Court in WPS No. 2635/2020 vide order dated 10.07.2020 has also not granted any relief to the petitioner by granting back-wages to him, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled 3 for grant of back-wages and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction. 5. It is not in dispute that the Sub-Divisional Officer has reinstated the petitioner without back-wages and the petitioner has not challenged denial of back-wages by the Sub-Divisional before any appropriate forum and even the Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No. 2635/2020 has also not directed for grant of back-wages. 6. In absence of any challenge by the petitioner regarding back-wages before appropriate forum, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief from this Court regarding grant of back-wages for the said period. Even the petitioner has also not placed any material on record to demonstrate that during alleged termination period, he was out of employment as burden lies on the petitioner only to prove that the petitioner was unemployed during intervening period of termination from service. 7. Considering these aspect of the matter, no interference is called for in the present writ petition at this stage. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition sans merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Arun