1 2026:CGHC:2899 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 449 of 2026 • Usha Choubey D/o Late Jagdish Choubey Aged About 53 Years Presently Working As Teacher (Lb) At Govt. Middle School Kesra, Block Mainpat, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.). 2. Director Public Instruction, Indravati Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.). 3. Divisional Joint Director Education, Division Surguja Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). 4. District Education Officer Surguja District Surguja (C.G.). 5. Head Master Govt. Middle School Kesra, Block Mainpat, District Surguja (C.G.). ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. C. Jayank K. Rao, Advocate. For State/Respondents : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Deputy A.G. and Dr. Arham Siddiaui, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 16/01/2026 1. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, direction/directions to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, DEEPTI JHA Digitally signed by DEEPTI JHA 2 directing the respondent authorities to immediately relieve the petitioner from her present place of posting and permit her to join at the promoted post (Cass-C) at Tribal Girls Ashram, Bharatpur, Block Bharatpur, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri- Bharatpur in pursuance of promotion order dated 01.08.2025. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, direction/directions to the respondents to decide and dispose of the petitioner's representations dated 07.11.2025 and 08.12.2025 (Annexure-P/2) by passing a reasoned and speaking order withi8n a stipulated time. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to declare the action/inaction of the respondents in not relieving the petitioner pursuant to promotion order dated 01.08.2025 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, direction/directions to the respondent for granting all consequential service benefits including seniority, pay fixation and arrears arising out of the promotion order dated 01.08.2025 to the petitioner. 10.5 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief (s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is working on the post of Teacher LB was served with a charge sheet on 05.05.2025. He also contended that after putting the petitioner on suspension, petitioner was served with a charge sheet / charge memo on 08.07.2025 dated 09.06.2025 and since then, petitioner is continuously under suspension since last more than 90 days. He submits that the petitioner, who is a government employee could not be put on to the suspension for inordinate period and it is for the competent authority to review the order of suspension after completion of the period of 90 days. In support of his contention, he placed his reliance upon 3 the decision in case of Ajay Kumar Chaudhary Versus Union of India reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291. He also submits that his case is squarely covered with the aforementioned decision, hence, this writ petition be allowed and the respondent authorities be directed to review the order of suspension of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the submission of counsel for the petitioner and would submit that the submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that the case of the petitioner squarely covered with the decision of Ajay Kumar Chaudhary (supra) is not correct. In the aforementioned case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, provisions, which was placed was the Central Civil Services Rules in which, there is specific provision, which clearly stipulates that an order of suspension is not valid beyond 90 days, unless extended after reviewed. No such provision is provided under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. He also contended that similar issue was considered by the Division Bench of this High Court in WA No.825/2024 State of Chhattisgarh Versus Pradeep Sharma and considering that as there is no provision under CCA Rules for reviewing of the order of suspension after expiry of the period of 90 days, held that it is not for the authority to review the order of suspension only because the 90 days period has already been expired. 4. I have learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Petitioner, in this writ petition has sought relief for revocation of the order of suspension and to reinstate the petitioner, relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Ajay Kumar Chaudhary (supra). It is argued that where a delinquent employee is suspended, he was served with 4 a charge sheet, then also the competent authority is required to pass an order for reviewing the earlier order of suspension, if, it crosses the period of 90 days from the date of order of suspension. 7. Perusal of the decision in Ajay Kumar Chaudhary (supra) would show that the appellant therein was posted as Defence Estate Officer (DEO), Kashmir Circle, Jammu & Kashmir. From judgment, it is also revealing that the appellant therein has approached Central Administrative Tribunal and thereafter to High Court, which means that the appellant therein governed by the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for short “Rules, 1965”). Under sub-rule 7 of Rule 10, it is clearly provided that an order of suspension is not valid beyond 90 days, unless extended after review. 8. In the case at hand, petitioner is an employee of the State Government and to him the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short “Rules, 1966”) applies. Rule 9 of Rules, 1966 talks of suspension, under Rule 9 there is no provision that after lapse of 90 days the order of suspension could not be valid unless extended by the competent authority after review of the earlier order. Under Rules, 1966, requirement of the extending of the period by the competent authority, i.e., the State Government is provided only when charge sheet is not served upon the delinquent employee within a period of 45 days. Further under proviso, it is provided that the extension in such a situation cannot be beyond a period of 90 days from the date of the order of suspension. Under Rule 5(A), it is envisaged that ‘an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under this rule, shall continue to remain enforce until it is modified or revoked by the authority competent to do so’. 9. Service of the petitioner is governed with Rules, 1966 and under Rule 9 of Rules, 1966 there is no such provision, as provided under Rule 10 of the Rules, 1965 (Central Rules). The Division Bench of this Court in case of 5 State of Chhattisgarh Versus Pradeep Sharma, WA No.825/2024 has considered the provision under Rule 10(7) of Rules, 1965 as also Rule 9 of Rules, 1966 and held that requirement of extending the period of suspension, beyond 90 days is not provided and nor it is mandatory. 10. In view of the foregoing discussions, consideration of Rule 9 under Rules 1966, I am of the considered opinion that Rules, 1966 does not mandate for the order of suspension, beyond 90 days would not be valid. In the aforementioned facts of the case, no relief as prayed for by the petitioner in this writ petition can be granted (more particularly when the date of suspension of the petitioner is 05.05.2025, charge sheet was served upon him on 07.07.2025) only on the ground that suspension of the petitioner has exceeded 90 days. Accordingly, the instant writ petition being sans merit, is dismissed. However, considering the facts of the case, respondents are directed to conclude the departmental enquiry proceedings expeditiously, subject to co-operation of the petitioner. 11. Interlocutory application(s), pending if any, also stands disposed of. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Deepti Jha