1 2026:CGHC:21936 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2342 of 2026 1 - Dwarikadhish Tiwari S/o Shri Ageshwar Tiwari Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Bagda, Post Kotaiya P.S. Tahsil And Block Pratappur, District- Surajpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Surajpur, District- Surajpur (C.G.) 2 - Joint Director, School Education Department, Division Surguja, At Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) 3 - District Education Officer, Surajpur, District- Surajpur (C.G.) 4 - Sri Kumeshwar Tiwari Posted As Headmaster, Govt. Middle School, Village Songara, Block Pratappur, District- Surajpur (C.G.) 5 - Block Education Officer Pratappur, District- Surajpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) For Petitioner : Mr. Akash Pandey, Advocate For State : Mr. Abhishek Gupta, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 11/05/2026 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 “10.1 To call for the records of the case for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may allow the writ petition and to issue appropriate writ and to direct res.no.5 to take appropriate action against res.no.4 for illegal benefits received by res. no. 4 by submitting wrong information of green card holder and further direct respondents authorities to recover the amount illegally received by respondent No. 4. 10.3 This Hon'ble Court may direct the respondent no. 5 to initiate the departmental proceedings against the res. no. 4 on the basis of complaint made by petitioner within appropriate time frame in the interest of Justice. 10.4 Any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.” 2. Facts of the case, as projected, are that respondent No. 4 is a Government teacher presently posted as Head Master, Middle School, village Songara, Block Pratappur. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 4 had illegally obtained the benefit of two advance increments/pay upgradation available to employees having two or less children by falsely declaring himself to be 3 eligible under the “Green Card Holder” policy. It has been stated that respondent No. 4 in fact has three children namely Akash, Vikas and Madhuri, all of whom were born prior to the year 1997 when the aforesaid benefit was allegedly availed by respondent No. 4. It is further the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is presently working as Up-Sarpanch of village Bagda and is actively associated with the management and development of schools in the area. According to the petitioner, after receiving information regarding the alleged illegal benefit availed by respondent No. 4, the petitioner submitted various complaints before the competent authorities seeking appropriate action in the matter. The petitioner has further stated that pursuant to the complaints submitted by him, respondent No. 5 issued notice dated 02.03.2026 to respondent No. 4 calling for his reply and thereafter also issued reminder dated 06.04.2026. However, according to the petitioner, despite issuance of notice and reminder, neither any reply has been submitted by respondent No. 4 nor any final action has been taken by the authorities concerned till date. Being aggrieved by such alleged inaction, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 4 had obtained the benefit of two advance increments/pay upgradation by furnishing false information regarding the number of children and thereby caused financial loss to the State exchequer as well as the Panchayat Department. It is contended 4 that under the applicable Government policy, the benefit of additional increments was available only to employees having two or less children, whereas respondent No. 4 already had three children prior to the year 1997. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that despite repeated complaints submitted by the petitioner and despite issuance of notice and reminder by respondent No. 5, no effective action has been taken against respondent No. 4 till date. It is argued that the conduct of respondent No. 4 amounts to misconduct under Rule 3 and Rule 22-A of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 and appropriate proceedings ought to be initiated against him in accordance with law. Learned counsel therefore prays that suitable directions be issued to the competent authority for consideration of the complaints and for taking appropriate action in accordance with law. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that notices have already been issued by the competent authority to respondent No. 4 pursuant to the complaints submitted by the petitioner and the matter is under consideration. It is further submitted that if this Court directs the competent authority to consider the matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, the State would have no objection. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. From the pleadings and documents annexed with the petition, it 5 appears that on the basis of complaints submitted by the petitioner, notice dated 02.03.2026 and reminder dated 06.04.2026 have already been issued by the concerned Block Education Officer to respondent No. 4 seeking his response in the matter. However, no final decision appears to have been taken till date. 7. Considering the fact that notice as well as reminder have already been issued by the concerned Block Education Officer, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the concerned Block Education Officer to consider the matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to respondent No. 4. 8. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations made by the petitioner and the competent authority shall independently consider and decide the matter strictly in accordance with law. 9. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna Judge