1 2026:CGHC:7883 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5594 of 2023 1 - Dr. Sunita Jain W/o Bhurchand Bansilal Jain Aged About 55 Years R/o, C/o B.C. Jain, C-248 Sector 6, Behind Saint Dhyaneshwar School, Vallabh Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Directorate Of Public Instruction, Raipur (C.G.) Through Its Director, Department Of School Education, Indrawati Bhavan Block - C, 1st Floor, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Mission Through Its Director 2nd Floor Ekikrit Shiksha Bhawan, Pension Bada, Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Rajya Madhyamik Shiksha Mission Through Its Director 2nd Floor Ekikrit Shiksha Bhawan, Pension Bada, Raipur (C.G.) 5 - State Council Of Education Research And Training Through Its Director Bti Ground, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Vedant Shedangi, Advocate For State :- Mr. Hrishikesh Sharma, P.L. For Respondent No. 4 :- Ms. Akanksha Jain, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 Order On Board 12.02.2026 1. The present petition is preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities whereby even after submitting a representation, the arrears of the petitioner have not been paid till date for the services rendered in between the period from 2013 till 2020 while on deputation in the State of C.G. 2. The petitioner in the present writ petition has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to release the outstanding amount (deputation allowance) to the tune of Rs. 42,96,575 /- (Forty-Two Lakh Ninety- Six Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy-Five only) for the service provided by the petitioner while on deputation in the State of C.G. from the period 2013 till 2020. (The bifurcation/details of which is enclosed herein at Annexure P/9) along with the arrears & interest. 10.2 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost of the petition.” 3. Facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed and posted as Assistant Professor (Sociology) at Government University, Kirnapur, State of Madhya Pradesh, and was thereafter sent on deputation vide order dated 21.05.2013 to hold the post of Additional 3 Managing Director, Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Mission, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). Subsequently, vide letter dated 04.09.2014, the petitioner was relieved from the said post and posted as Deputy Director in the Directorate of Public Instruction, Raipur (Chhattisgarh), and thereafter, vide order dated 09.02.2016, was appointed as Additional Director, State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT), Raipur (Chhattisgarh). During the period of deputation, it was communicated vide letter dated 20.10.2016 that the difference amount of salary increment from 05.09.2014 to 31.10.2015 had not been paid to the petitioner. On 07.02.2020, the petitioner was relieved from SCERT, Raipur, and her services were repatriated to her parent department, i.e., Government University, Kirnapur (M.P.), on the post of Assistant Professor. Thereafter, vide letter dated 14.08.2020, issued by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Higher Education Department, Madhya Pradesh, the petitioner was granted the Senior Grade Pay Scale (4th Pay Band) w.e.f. 30.07.2010, which benefit was extended for the period prior to deputation; however, the petitioner was unlawfully deprived of the said 4th Pay Band benefits and correct deputation allowance for the period from 2013 to 2020 while serving in the State of Chhattisgarh. As a consequence, substantial arrears accrued in favour of the petitioner, including arrears of 4th Pay Band and deputation allowance during service as Additional Managing Director and Deputy Director amounting to Rs. 4,61,928/- and Rs. 4,90,368/- respectively, and further arrears of 4th and 7th Pay Bands during service as Additional Director, SCERT, amounting to Rs. 4 33,44,279/-. The petitioner made a detailed representation dated 11.03.2023 raising the aforesaid grievances along with calculations of arrears, but no action has been taken by the respondent authorities, compelling the petitioner to file present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, while holding a substantive post in the parent cadre, was sent on deputation to various responsible posts in the State of Chhattisgarh and throughout the deputation period her lien, pay scale and service benefits remained protected under settled principles of service jurisprudence. It is further submitted that the entitlement of the petitioner to the 4th Pay Band w.e.f. 30.07.2010 and subsequent fixation under the 7th UGC Pay Scale stands duly recognized and approved by the competent authorities of the parent State of Madhya Pradesh, yet the respondent authorities in the State of Chhattisgarh have illegally failed to extend the corresponding monetary benefits for the deputation period from 2013 to 2020. Learned counsel submits that the non-payment of admitted salary increments, pay band arrears and deputation allowance, despite official communications and representations, including the representation dated 11.03.2023, is arbitrary and bad in law. 5. Learned State Counsel submits that upon receipt of the representation preferred by the petitioner, the respondent authorities examined the matter and found that the calculations of the alleged outstanding dues were prepared by the petitioner herself and had not 5 been verified or approved by the office of the Accountant General, and therefore, in absence of such verification, a final decision regarding payment could not be taken at that stage. Learned State Counsel further submits that no specific sanction or formal approval from the competent authority of the State of Madhya Pradesh has been received in respect of the claim raised by the petitioner, and therefore the matter requires appropriate administrative examination. 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 supports the submissions of learned State counsel and opposes the writ petition. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. For the sake of convenience, paragraphs 3 and 4 of the reply filed by the State counsel are quoted hereinbelow:- “3. It is respectfully submitted that, pursuant to the representation made by the petitioner, the respondent authorities initiated proceeding and examined the case of the petitioner, wherein, taking into consideration the fact that the calculation of outstanding made by the petitioner herself has not been approved by the office of the Accountant General and therefore, in absence of such approval the decision on payment of outstanding dues could not be made. In this view of the matter, the Director, SCERT, Raipur vide letter dated 15.01.2021 before the State Government, Department of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur. Copy of the letter 6 dated 15.01.2021 is annexed and marked herewith as ANNEXURE R/1. 4.It would be pertinent to submit here that the calculation of outstanding dues as stated above has been made by the petitioner herself and on the basis of the same she made representation before the respondent authorities for payment of the same. It would also be pertinent to submit here that, there no sanction or order with respect to the claim of the petitioner by the State of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, in absence of such claim there is no substance in the claim of the petitioner.” 9. In view of the return filed by the learned State counsel/respondents No. 1, 2 and 5, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the authorities shall be at liberty to take an independent decision for redressal of the petitioner’s grievance. The respondents are directed to complete the aforesaid exercise within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. No order as to costs. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha