1 2026:CGHC:13989 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6528 of 2021 1 - Maniram Lahre S/o Late K. L. Lahre Aged About 67 Years R/o Rama Valley, Near High Court Raipur Road, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Tribal And Welfare Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Commissioner Department Of Tribal And Welfare Development, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner/s : Shri Sashikumar Kushwaha, Advocate. For Respondents/ State : Shri R.C.S. Deo, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 24 .03.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash order of appellate authorities dated 06.10.2016 (Annexure P-1) to the extent declaring suspension period as non qualifying service and to deprive from monetary benefits/ other benefit except subsistence allowance, in the interest of justice. NIRMALA RAO 2 (ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue direction to the respondents to regularize and grant complete benefit of suspension period from 26.07.2008 to 11.02.2009 with 18% interest, in the interest of justice. (iii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was working on the post of Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bageecha, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. He would contend that a departmental enquiry was initiated against him and a show-cause notice was issued on 14.11.2013. He would contend that the disciplinary authority vide order dated 26.11.2015 inflicted penalty of stoppage of two increments with non-cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the Appellate Authority vide order dated 6.10.2016 modified it to penalty of stoppage of one increment with non-cumulative effect. He would submit that no decision has been taken by the Appellate Authority with regard to suspension period. He would contend that the Appellate Authority should have decided as to whether the period of suspension would be treated as part of service and whether the petitioner would be entitled to salary for the said period, therefore, the impugned order is bad in law. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of stoppage of two increments with non-cumulative effect which has been modified by the Appellate Authority. He would submit that the petitioner failead 3 to point out any illegality in the orders impugned, and therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard. 5. Taking into consideration the fact that the issue with regard to salary of the suspension period has not been decided and further, no observation has been made with regard to period spent on suspension, therefore, the petition is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to make a representation before respondent No.2 raising all his grievances and in turn, the said authority is directed to consider and decide the same within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. With the aforesaid observation(s), this petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi