1 WA No. 93 of 2026 2026:CGHC:5196-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 93 of 2026 Anita Morla W/o Devendra Jhadi Aged About 36 Years Staff Nurse, Eklavya Adarsh Awasiya Vidhyala, Kate Kalyan ( Jawanga ) , R/o Kailash Nagar, Ward No. 15, District Dantewada Chhattisgarh. Appellant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Schedule Caste And Schedule Tribe Development Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director, Schedule Caste And Schedule Tribe Development Department , Indrawati Bhawan Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector/ President, Zila Stariya Chhattisgarh, Aadim Jati, Kalyan Aawasiya Avam Aashram Shaikshnik Samiti District South Bastar Dantewada Chhattisgarh. 4 - Chief Medical And Health Officer , District South Bastar Dantewada Chhattisgarh. Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant(s) : Ms. Kusum Lalchandani, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Govt. Advocate RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.01.30 17:40:28 +0530 2 WA No. 93 of 2026 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru, J 30/01/2026 1. The appellant has preferred I.A. No. 01/2026 for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the petitioner/appellant was reinstated in service pursuant to the order passed by learned Single Judge of this Court on 02.02.2024 in WPS No.4817 of 2018. Thereafter, a departmental inquiry was initiated against her, which culminated in her being exonerated and granted a clean chit vide order dated 28.07.2025. It is further submitted that despite such exoneration, the petitioner/appellant was denied back wages. Upon consulting her counsel, she preferred the present appeal without any further delay. It is contended that the delay in filing the appeal is bona fide, unintentional, and occasioned due to the aforesaid circumstances. Accordingly, a prayer is made for condonation of the delay. 3. Upon due consideration of the submissions advanced and the reasons assigned in the application, this Court is satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown for condoning the delay in filing the present appeal. Consequently, I.A. No. 01/2026 stands allowed and the delay of 635 days in filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned. 3 WA No. 93 of 2026 4. The present Writ Appeal, filed under Section 2(1) of the High Court of Chhattisgarh (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006, has been preferred by the appellant seeking the following reliefs: (i) Set-aside the impugned order dated 02/02/2024 (ANNEXURE A-1) passed by the Learned Single Bench in W.P.(S) No. 4817/2018 to the extent of not entitled for any back wages. ii. Set-aside the impugned order dated 28/07/2025 (ANNEXURE A-2) to the extent of not entitled for any back wages, iii. Grant the Petitioner back wages with all the Consequential benefits arising out of her post in the interest of justice. iv. Pass any other order/ orders as the Hon'ble court deems fit and just into the facts and grounds of the case. 5. According to the appellant, she was appointed to the post of Staff Nurse and was posted at Eklavya Adarsh Awasiya Kanya Vidyalaya, Katekalyan, District South Bastar, Dantewada. It is her case that she discharged her duties diligently and sincerely. Subsequently, a complaint was made against the appellant questioning her qualifications (Diploma) for the post of Staff Nurse and objecting to her appointment. The appellant contends that merely on the basis of the said complaint, and without conducting any inquiry or affording her an opportunity of hearing, her services were terminated. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant immediately approached this Court by filing WPS No. 4817/2018 which has been allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 02.02.2024 and directed reinstatement of the appellant/petitioner. 4 WA No. 93 of 2026 However, payment of back wages was denied. The Court further directed the authorities to constitute and conduct an inquiry against the appellant, if required. The relevant portion of the order dated 02.02.2024 is reproduced hereinbelow:— “9. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order is not sustainable and the same deserves to be and hereby quashed, Respondent No.3 is directed to reinstate the petitioner in service. However, it is made clear that the petitioner is not entitled For any back wages and the respondent authority is at liberty to institute an enquiry, if required. It is further made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the educational qualification of the petitioner for the subject post. The concerned Department, after affording proper opportunity as per rules to the petitioner, may take a decision on merits of the finding independently and thereafter proceed further. 10. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the petition is allowed.” 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that pursuant to the order dated 02.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant was reinstated in service, though back wages were denied and a departmental inquiry was directed to be conducted. It is contended that the Inquiry Committee, upon due consideration of the material on record, granted a clean chit to the appellant, thereby conclusively establishing that there was no fault or misconduct attributable to her. Despite such grant of full exoneration, the Inquiry Committee declined to recommend payment of back wages solely by 5 WA No. 93 of 2026 placing reliance upon the direction contained in the order dated 02.02.2024, whereby back wages had initially been denied. Learned counsel would further submit that the complainant, at whose instance the complaint against the appellant was made, has since expired. Learned counsel would further submit that once the appellant has been found completely innocent in the departmental inquiry, denial of back wages would amount to penalising her for no fault of her own. It is submitted that the initial termination of the appellant was effected without conducting any inquiry and without affording her an opportunity of hearing, which itself was in violation of the principles of natural justice and was the very basis for her reinstatement by this Court. Placing reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Madhusudan Prasad, (2004) 1 SCC 43, learned counsel would contend that the Supreme Court has categorically held that in cases where termination is effected without any inquiry or issuance of a show-cause notice, Fundamental Rule 54 cannot be invoked to deny back wages for the period between dismissal and reinstatement. It is, therefore, submitted that since the appellant has been reinstated and subsequently exonerated of all charges, denial of back wages is wholly unjustified, arbitrary and unsustainable in law, and the appellant is entitled to be granted back wages for the period she was kept out of service without any fault on her part. 7. Learned counsel for the State, while opposing the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant and supporting the impugned order, would submit that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is just, proper and in 6 WA No. 93 of 2026 accordance with law. It is contended that no prejudice has been caused to the appellant by virtue of the said order. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. Admittedly, the appellant was terminated from service on the basis of a complaint regarding her educational qualification. It is also not in dispute that the complainant has since expired. Further, vide order dated 02.02.2024 passed in W.P.(S) No. 4817/2018, the appellant was directed to be reinstated in service without back wages, with a further direction to conduct a departmental inquiry. 10. From the record, it is evident that the Inquiry Committee, upon completion of the inquiry, granted a clean chit to the appellant. However, back wages for the period during which the appellant remained out of service were denied by placing reliance solely upon the earlier order passed by the learned Single Judge. 11. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Madhusudan Prasad (supra) has held as under:— “It is true that when a reinstatement is ordered in appeal or review, the authorities can pass a specific order regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the government servant for the period of his absence from duty preceding the dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be, in view of Fundamental Rule 54. However, where the employee has been removed from service without holding any enquiry 7 WA No. 93 of 2026 or issuing a show-cause notice, and there is fault on the part of the employer in not following the principles of natural justice, Fundamental Rule 54 cannot be invoked to deny back wages for the period between dismissal and reinstatement.” 12. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix and the law laid down by the Supreme Court, it is apparent that the issue relating to entitlement of back wages requires reconsideration in the correct legal perspective. 13. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 2.2.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.4817 of 2018 as well as the order dated 28.07.2025 (Annexure A-2) passed by the office of the respondent No.3, both to the extent of denial back wages to the appellant, are set aside. 14. Consequently, the writ appeal is allowed to the limited extent that the competent Authority (Respondent No.3), who has passed the order dated 28.07.2025 (Annexure-A/2), shall reconsider and decide afresh the issue relating to the entitlement of back wages of the appellant/petitioner, without influenced by the observations made by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 4817/2018 concerning such entitlement. The authority concerned shall take a reasoned decision in accordance with law within a period of 25 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Rahul