1 2026:CGHC:22786 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4144 of 2026 Sushil Kumar Sahu S/o Jageshwar Ram Sahu Aged About 35 Years Working As Teacher (E-Cadre) At Government Middle School, Parsada, Block Paton, Distt. Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Director Directorate Of Public Instruction, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Joint Director Education Division, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 4. The Collector Durg Distt. Durg (C.G.) 5. The District Education Officer Durg Distt. Durg (C.G.) 6. The Block Education Officer Block- Patan, District- Patan (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. R.K. Verma, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Hariom Rai, P.L. JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.05.15 10:44:24 +0530 2 (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 14/05/2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Teacher (E-Cadre) on 24.08.2021 and joined service on 06.09.2021. He further submits that the petitioner was dismissed from service by order dated 21.04.2023 on the ground that he had cleared the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) prior to completion of graduation. However, the said dismissal order was subsequently set aside by the State Government vide order dated 04.10.2023 and the petitioner was reinstated in service. Learned counsel further submits that despite reinstatement, the respondents have illegally denied salary and consequential service benefits for the period from 21.04.2023 to 05.10.2023. It is submitted that the petitioner submitted several representations in this regard and thereafter approached this Court in WPS No. 10342/2025, which was disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 3 to decide the representation in accordance with law. He further submits that respondent No. 3, vide impugned order dated 25.03.2026 (Annexure P-9), rejected the claim of the petitioner solely on the ground that the reinstatement order does not specifically direct that the intervening period be treated as duty period. According to learned counsel, the impugned order is contrary to Fundamental Rule 54-A(3), as once the dismissal has been found wholly unjustified and the petitioner has been reinstated, he become entitled to full salary and allowances for the 3 intervening period by operation of law. It is further submitted that the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the representation of the petitioner has been decided strictly in accordance with the reinstatement order passed by the State Government, which does not specifically provide that the petitioner would be entitled to salary for the period during which he remained out of service. He further submits that the impugned order is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 4. Perusal of the record would show that by order dated 04.10.2023 (Annexure P-3), the State Government set aside the termination order of the petitioner observing that the petitioner was graduate at the time of recruitment and had also passed the TET examination and, therefore, the decision to dismiss the petitioner was erroneous. 5. For ready reference, FR 54-A(3) is reproduced hereinbelow:- “FR 54-A xxx xxx xxx (3) If the dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement of a Government servant is set aside by the Court on the merits of the case, the period intervening between the date of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, including the period of suspension preceding such dismissal, removal or 4 compulsory retirement, as the case may be, and the date of reinstatement shall be treated as duty for all purposes and he shall be paid the full pay and allowances for the period to which he would have been entitled had he not been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired or suspended prior to such dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be.” 6. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that once the order of dismissal has been set aside on merits and the employee has been reinstated in service, the intervening period is liable to be treated as duty for all purposes and the employee becomes entitled to full pay and allowances for the said period. 7. In the present case, since the dismissal orders of the petitioner was found to be erroneous and were set aside by the State Government, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to salary for the period from 21.04.2023 to 05.10.2023. 8. Consequently, the impugned order dated 25.03.2026 passed by respondent No. 3 is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to release the salary of the petitioner for the period 21.04.2023 to 05.10.2023 within a period of 50 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Jyoti