1 2026:CGHC:23117 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1254 of 2021 1 - Ramkumar Dixit S/o Jainarayan Dixit Aged About 48 Years Present Working On The Post Of Accountant Janpad Panchayat Mungeli District Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Rural And Panchayat Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Chief Executive Officer Jila Panchayat Mungeli District Mungeli (Chhattisgarh)., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Mungeli, District Mungeli (Chhattisgarh), District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Ritesh Sahu, Advocate holding the brief of Smt. Neha Shah, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Mr. Anil S. Pandey, G.A. For Respondents No.2 & 3 : Mr. Ravipal Maheshwari, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 15.5.2026 NIRMALA RAO 2 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “10,1. That, the Honble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records for the kind perusal of this Honble Court in the matter related to the petitioner. 10.2 That, the Honble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 22/05/2016 to the extent to not payment of deferential salary. 10.3 That, the Honble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to pay differential salary amounted as per Annexure P/7 to the petitioner with interest. 10.4. Any other relief which the Honble Court may deem fit, in the interest of justice.” 2) The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Lower Division Clerk in the office of respondent No.3 vide order dated 31.7.1998. The said order of appointment was cancelled vide order dated 13.11.1998, as the resolution passed by the General Administration Committee dated 13.11.1998 was subsequently cancelled by the General Body. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing WP No.5592 of 1998 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, wherein an interim order was granted in his favour. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 11.3.2015, reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority in accordance with law, and the interim relief granted in favour of the petitioner continued till disposal of the said appeal. The petitioner preferred 3 an appeal on 23.3.2015, and the said appeal was disposed of by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Mungeli vide order dated 22.6.2015. The services of the petitioner were regularized with effect from the said date; however, the claim for the difference in salary was rejected. The petitioner has filed the present petition claiming arrears of the difference in salary for the period from 31.7.1998 till 22.6.2015. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed against a sanctioned and vacant post and his services were terminated without affording him due opportunity of hearing. He would further contend that respondent No.3 rectified its mistake vide order dated 22.6.2015 and passed an order of regularization, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to arrears of the difference in salary from 31.7.1998 till 22.6.2015. 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 petitioner was temporarily appointed to the post of Lower Division Clerk vide order dated 31.7.1998. They would submit that no pay-scale admissible to the petitioner was prescribed in the said order. It is also argued that approval from the General Body was not obtained, therefore, the said order of appointment was cancelled vide order dated 13.11.1998. It is also argued that the order terminating the service of the petitioner had not been quashed by any authority and that the services of the petitioner have been regularized with effect from 22.6.2015. 4 Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim arrears of the difference in salary for the said period. They would submit that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on record. 6) A perusal of the order of appointment dated 31.7.1998 would show that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Lower Division Clerk under respondent No.3. The said resolution was cancelled vide order dated 13.11.1998 and the said order has not been challenged by the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the order dated 13.11.1998 by filing WP No.5592 of 1998, which was disposed of vide order dated 11.3.2015 reserving liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the Collector. 7) In paragraph 8.7, it is pleaded that the appeal preferred before the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat. Respondent No.3 vide order dated 22.6.2015 restored the order dated 31.7.1998 and further observed that the petitioner would not be entitled for arrears of the difference in salary. The services of the petitioner were regularized with effect from 22.6.2015. The petitioner accepted the order of regularization dated 22.6.2015 without any objection and filed the present petition after six years i.e. on 31.1.2021 without explaining the delay, therefore, no relief, as prayed for by the petitioner, can be granted in his favour, and no 5 case is made out for interference. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Nimmi