1 2026:CGHC:15496 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4274 of 2021 1 - Smt. Veena Lahre (Smt. Veena Vikrant Singh) D/o Shri B.R. Lahre Aged About 44 Years W/o Dr. Vikrant Singh, R/o Vikrant Bhawan Jarhabhata, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Secretary State Of Chhattisgarh, Local Administration Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Director Directorate Of Public Education Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - District Education Officer Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner/s : Ms. Meena Shastri, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Anil S. Pandey, G.A. For Respondent No.3 : Shri Ashish Tiwari, Advocate. NIRMALA RAO 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 06 .04.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/direction/ order commanding the Respondent No. 02 & 03 to provide the financial benefits (Salary with increments and other benefits fixed for the promoted post "Teacher") from 15-07-2008 to 27-08-2018 to the Petitioner with bank rate interests. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court further be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/direction/order commanding the Respondent No. 01, 04, 05 to provide the financial benefits (Salary with increments and other benefits fixed for the promoted post "Teacher") from 28-08-2018 to 04-05-2020 to the Petitioner with bank rate interests. 10.3 Any other relief(s), which may deems fit, looking to the facts & circumstances of the case may be given to the Petitioner.” 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III vide order dated 8.2.1999 under respondent No.3/ Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur. The juniors to the petitioner were promoted to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-II vide order dated 15/18.07.2008. The petitioner filed WP(S) No.5244 of 2008 which was disposed of vide order dated 18.7.2019, wherein a direction was issued to the Municipal Corporation to consider and grant promotion to the petitioner to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-II at par with her juniors. The name of the petitioner was thereafter considered for promotion to the said post on 19.3.2020 (Annexure-P/1). In the said order, it was specifically observed that the 3 petitioner would not be entitled to arrears and allowances attached to the said post, applying the principle of “No Work No Pay”. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there was no fault on the part of the petitioner or no departmental enquiry was pending against her, therefore, the inaction of the respondent authorities in not granting promotion to the petitioner was bad in law. Consequently, this Court in WP(S) No. 5244 of 2008 directed the respondent authorities to consider her claim for promotion to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-II. She would submit that the order of promotion issued by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur dated 19.3.2020, without extending monetary benefits, is bad in law. She has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter Union of India vs. K.V. Jankiraman, reported in 1991 LawSuit (SC) 409. 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 would be entitled to receive monetary benefits only from the date she assumed charge of the promoted post. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 would submit that according to the provisions of Fundamental Rules 17, an employee becomes entitled to receive monetary benefits from the date he assumes charge. He would submit that the petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents available on record. 4 6. A perusal of the order passed in W.P.(S) No.5244 of 2008 would make it clear that the petitioner was entitled for promotion to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-II alongwith her colleagues on 15/18.07.2008. A specific direction was issued to the respondent authorities to consider the name of the petitioner for promotion from 15/18.07.2008. Subsequently order of promotion dated 19.3.2020 (Annexure-P/1) was issued. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur has denied monetary benefits to the petitioner but the observation so made by the said authority appears to be erroneous and in contravention to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of K.V. Jankiraman (supra). The relevant para 2 is reproduced herein below: “2. When an employee is completely exonerated meaning thereby that he is not found blameworthy in the least and is not visited with the penalty even of censure, he has to be given the benefit of the salary of the higher post along with the other benefits from the date on which he would have normally been promoted but for the disciplinary/criminal proceedings. This cannot be denied on principle of "no work no pay". The normal rule of “no work no pay” is not applicable to cases where the employee although he is willing to work is kept away from work by the authorities for no fault of his. This is not a case where the employee remains away from work for his own' reasons, although the work is offered to him. Hence F.R. 17(1) will also not apply to such cases. However, there may be cases where the proceedings, whether disciplinary or criminal, are, for example, delayed at the instance of the employee or the clearance in the disciplinary proceedings or acquittal in the criminal proceedings is with benefit of doubt or on account of non-availability of evidence due to the acts attributable to the employee etc. In such circumstances, the concerned authorities must be vested with the power to decide whether 5 the employee at all deserves any salary for the intervening period and if he does, the extent to which he deserves it. Life being complex, it is not possible to anticipate and enumerate exhaustively all the circumstances under which such consideration may become necessary. To ignore however, such circumstances when they exist and lay down' an inflexible rule that in every case when an employee is exonerated in disciplinary/ criminal proceedings he should be entitled to all salary for the intervening period is to undermine discipline in the administration and jeopardise public interests. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the Tribunal that to deny the salary to an employee would in all circumstances be illegal. While, therefore, we do not approve of the said last sentence in the first sub-paragraph after clause (iii) of paragraph 3 of the said Memorandum, dated January 30, 1982 viz.. "but no arrears of pay shall be payable to him for the period of notional promotion preceding the date of actual promotion", the following sentence is directed to be read in place of the said sentence. “However, whether the officer concerned will be entitled to any arrears of pay for the period of notional promotion preceding the date of actual promotion, and if so to what extent, will be decided by the concerned authority by taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the disciplinary proceeding/criminal prosecution. Where the authority denies arrears of salary or part of it, it will record its reasons for doing so." 7. Taking into consideration the fact that there was no misrepresentation by the petitioner, no enquiry was pending against her, and her name was not considered for promotion to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-II by the respondent authorities without any sufficient reason, therefore, as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court she shall be entitled for all monetary benefits attached to the post from 6 15/18.07.2008 when her colleagues were granted promotion. The petitioner would be at liberty to make a representation before the respondent authorities within a period of 30 days and in turn, the authorities concerned are directed to decide it preferably within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. With the aforesaid observation(s), the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi