1 2026:CGHC:4836 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 939 of 2026 1 - Sanjay Kumar Verma S/o Shri Vishram Verma Aged About 38 Years Working As Ex-Assistant Teacher Panchayat Verg-3 Govt. Primary School Tildabandha, Boock Simga, District Baloda-Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through It Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Bhatapara- Baloda-Bazar, District Bhatapar-Balloda-Bazar (C.G.) 3 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Simga, District- Bhatapara- Baloda- Bazar (C.G.) 4 - Janpad Panchayat Through Its Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Simga, District- Bhatapara-Baloda-Bazar (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Rishab Bisen, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Government Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 29/0 1/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the show-cause notice dated 08.01.2026 (Annexure P/1). 2 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant Salary of the petitioner since date of joining of the order of reinstatement. 10.3 That any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case and the costs of the petition may be given.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner while working on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade – III was earlier terminated from service which was put to challenge before this Court through WP (S) No. 3406/2022 which was allowed and directed the respondents therein to reinstate the petitioner without back-wages. Though the petitioner was reinstated on 23.08.2025, however, another show-cause notice was issued on 08.01.2026 on the same grounds which was subject matter of challenge in the writ petition and therefore, show-cause notice dated 08.01.2026 is bad in law. He next contended that after reinstatement, petitioner is discharging his duties, however, he has not been paid salary since then. Petitioner has also submitted a representation before the Respondents No. 3 & 4, however, till date, salary is not being paid to the petitioner nor his representation is decided. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents/State opposes the submission of counsel for the petitioner and submits that the order by which the petitioner is reinstated, there is an observation made by the writ Court that the respondents can proceed in accordance with Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 and Rule 9 & 10 of the Chattisgarh Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Service Condition) Rules, 1997 and accordingly, the show-cause notice dated 08.01.2026 is issued. He submits that with respect to the second claim of salary, petitioner has also submitted representation and it will be considered by the appropriate authority i.e. the Respondents No. 3 & 4 for whom, he is not representing. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. The reliefs which is sought for by the petitioner is to quash the impugned show-cause notice dated 08.01.2026 (Annexure P/1). It is settled law that the show-cause notice is not an order prejudicing any right of the parties and therefore, no cause of action arose in favour of the petitioner. No right of the petitioner is infringed. 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28 has observed thus:- “14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show- cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ petition lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show- cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of anyone. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance.” 7. The purpose of show-cause notice is to submit reply on the grounds as made therein. It is also possible that after considering the reply to be submitted by the petitioner, the authority issuing the show-cause notice may be satisfied and close the proceedings. In the aforementioned facts of the case and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kunisetty Satyanarayana (Supra), I am of the view that the writ petition so far as it challenges the show-cause notice dated 08.01.2026 4 (Annexure P/1) is premature and accordingly, the said relief as sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. Accordingly, the writ petition seeking relief for quashing the show-cause notice dated 08.01.2026 (Annexure P/1) is dismissed. 8. With regard to the second submission of counsel for the petitioner about non-payment of salary from the date of reinstatement is concerned, petitioner has already submitted representation before the Respondents No. 2 & 3 and therefore, this writ petition, at this stage is disposed of directing the Respondents No. 1 & 2 to take decision on the pending representation in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of 02 weeks from the date of receipt of order. It is ordered accordingly. 9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY Date: 2026.02.05 11:41:48 +0530