1 2026:CGHC:22826 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4234 of 2022 1 - Smt. Madhurekha Lader W/o Atul Prakash Lader Aged About 54 Years Working As Lecturer (L.B.), Address- Govt. Higher Secondary School, Patewa, Tahsil And District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Atal Nagar, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director Directorate Of Public Instructions, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The District Education Officer Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Commissioner Durg Division, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Harishankar Patel, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Mr. Amandeep Singh, P.L. For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Aniket Verma, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 14.5.2026 NIRMALA RAO 2 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the records of case of petitioner from the respondents for kind perusal. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby setting-aside the impugned orders dated 12.04.2022 & 11.06.2020 (Annexure P/1 & P/2) and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to release all the monetary benefits for the period from 01.03.2012 to 23.01.2017, with arrears of salary and other monetary benefits as per Annexure P/8, along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of entitlement to its realization and further be pleased to count the service period for all the purposes by treating her continue in service. 10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 2) The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-II vide order dated 16.6.2005 at Government Middle School, Bori, Block and District Rajnandgaon. Thereafter, she participated in the recruitment process for the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-I and subsequently, she was appointed to the said post vide order dated 11.7.2008 on probation and thereafter, her services were regularized with effect from 22.7.2010. The petitioner applied for medical leave on account of ill-health on 3.4.2012. A show-cause notice was issued to the 3 petitioner on 16.12.2012 on account of her unauthorized absence which was duly replied by the petitioner. The services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 22.1.2013. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg which was allowed vide order dated 21.5.2015 on the ground that the termination order was passed in utter violation of principles of natural justice without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner was reinstated in service on 19.1.2017 and she joined her duties on 23.1.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner moved a representation claiming therein salary for the period from 1.3.2012 to 23.1.2017 interalia on the ground that she could not discharge her duties on account of illness. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, Rajnandgaon vide order dated 11.6.2020 declared the said period as a service period but denied salary for the same. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg which was dismissed vide order dated 12.4.2022. Against the said order, this petition has been preferred. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on account of ill-health, the petitioner could not discharge her duties and an application for grant of leave alongwith the relevant documents was initially moved on 3.4.2012. He would further submit that the leave period was extended from time to time but without affording any opportunity of hearing and without conducting any 4 departmental enquiry, the services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 22.1.2013. He would submit that the said order was set aside by the Commissioner, Durg Division and thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated in service vide order dated 21.5.2015. He would contend that although the petitioner claimed service benefits for the period from 1.3.2012 to 23.1.2017, but the respondent No.4, without holding any enquiry, denied salary for the said period though the said period has been counted as service period for other purposes. He would submit that the order passed by respondent No.4 amounts to imposition of a minor penalty which could not have been inflicted without holding a departmental enquiry. He would also submit that the Commissioner, Durg Division failed to consider this aspect. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. They would submit that the absence period has been considered as service period for other purposes but salary for said period has been denied, thus, the order passed by respondent No.4 does not amount to punishment. They would contend that initially services of the petitioner were terminated but the said order was subsequently set aside by the Commissioner, pursuant to which she was reinstated in service. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on record. 5 6) Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Dr. Anil Kumar Varma vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, reported in 2005(1) MPHT 24 (NOC), it appears that in the said case, an order of dies-non was passed and therefore, the petition was allowed but in the present case, no such order has been passed and thus, the facts of the present are entirely different. Further, reliance has been placed on the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Mrs. Shubhara Kunda vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., passed in WPS No.1554 of 2005. Perusal of para 2 of the said judgment, would make it clear that in the said matter an order of dies-non was passed and the period 26.9.1986 to 20.5.1988 was treated as dies-non. Thus, the facts of the said case are distinguishable from the facts of the present case. 7) Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner remained unauthorizedly absent from service, therefore, her services were terminated. Thus, it is not in dispute that the petitioner remained absent from service for a considerable period. 8) After due consideration, respondent No.4 counted the period of absence as a period spent in service for other service purposes but denied salary for the same, and the said order has been affirmed by the Commissioner. The petitioner failed to prove contrary, therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere. 6 9) Resultantly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Nimmi