1 2026:CGHC:13945 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 513 of 2021 Prawin Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Janak Ram Sahu Aged About 47 Years Lecturer (Local Body) At Govt. High School Kasawahi, Block Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh) R/o G-3, Sinchai Colony Rudri, District - Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh). ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur,, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Collector District - Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The District Education Officer Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari, (Chhattisgarh), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Deputy Director, The Local Audit Fund, Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - The Block Education Officer, Block - Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 7 - The Principal, Govt. Adarsh Kanya Higher Secondary School, Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 8 - The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate For State : Mr. Abhyuday Tripathi, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey 2 Order on Board 24/03/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining the impugned orders. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents for quashing the impugned orders, dt. 08/12/2020 & dt. 29/12/2020 Annexure - P/1 & P/2 respectively. 10.3 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant all the consequential benefits of services etc. to the petitioner. 10.4 May kindly be pleased to allow any other relief as deem fit and proper with cost of petition.” 2. Mr. Kesharwani, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III. A departmental enquiry was initiated against him, which culminated in an order of exoneration dated 09.10.2019. He would further submit that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Teacher (Panchayat) w.e.f. 26.02.2006 and thereafter to the post of Lecturer w.e.f. 01.02.2014. He would contend that on account of the pendency of the departmental enquiry, the name of the petitioner was not considered for promotion, and after its culmination, the order of promotion was passed by the competent authorities on 09.10.2019. He would contend that the petitioner was granted promotion with retrospective effect. 3. Mr. Kesarwani would argue that monetary benefits were extended to 3 the petitioner with retrospective effect pursuant to the order dated 09.10.2019. He would further argue that the Deputy Director, Local Audit Fund, passed an order dated 08.12.2020 on the ground that the petitioner did not assume charge, yet he was extended the benefit of higher pay in the promotional pay scale. He would also argue that the order passed by respondent No. 5 is bad in law. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India vs. K.V. Jankiraman, reported in 1991 LawSuit (SC) 409. 4. On the other hand, counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions and referred to Rule 17 of the Fundamental Rules, which states that an officer is entitled to draw pay attached to a post from the date when he assumes the duties of that post and ceases to draw it when he relinquishes such duties. They contended that since a departmental enquiry was pending, the petitioner was not considered for promotion, and after its conclusion, the promotion order was passed; however, monetary benefits should have been extended only from the date when the petitioner assumed duties. They would lastly submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard the parties and perused the documents. 6. On account of the pendency of the departmental enquiry, petitioner’s name was not considered for promotion, though he was eligible & entitled earlier. The departmental enquiry was concluded on 4 09.10.2019, and the competent authority granted promotion to the petitioner to the post of Teacher with effect from 26.02.2006 and to the post of Lecturer with effect from 01.02.2014. The respondent authorities never challenged the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Dhamtari, and thus it attained finality. 7. The benefits flowing from the order of promotion were rightly extended to the petitioner. However, respondent No. 5, on 08.12.2020, passed an order of recovery. The order reveals that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. The decision was taken only on the ground that the petitioner was not entitled to monetary benefits as he had not assumed duties. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with a similar issue, in the matter of K.V. Jankiraman (supra) has held that where an employee is fully exonerated in disciplinary proceedings and is found to be not blameworthy at all, he is entitled to all consequential service benefits, including salary of the higher/promotional post, even if he did not actually assume charge of that post. The Hon’ble Supreme Court rejected the argument of the authorities that salary can be paid only if the employee has physically worked on the post. Further held that such a technical plea cannot be sustained where the employee was wrongfully denied the promotion due to pending proceedings and is later completely cleared. 9. In the present case, the petitioner was eligible for promotion to the 5 higher posts of Teacher and thereafter Lecturer. On account of the pendency of the departmental enquiry, he was kept away from the promotional posts. It is not a case where the petitioner remained away from work on his own. After conclusion of the departmental enquiry, the competent authority rightly granted promotion to the petitioner. The authorities also extended monetary benefits from the date of promotion. Further, the respondent No.5 failed to afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner while passing orders impugned dated 08.12.2020 & 29.12.2020. It is not in dispute that the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Dhamtari was never challenged by the respondent authorities, thus, it attained finality, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the respondent No. 5 committed an error of law while passing the order of recovery. Accordingly, the said orders (Annexure P/1 & Annexure P/2) are liable to be and hereby quashed. 10.Accordingly, the petition is allowed. 11.No order as to cost. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim