1 2026:CGHC:24008 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4476 of 2022 * - Nidhi Mishra D/o R.K. Mishra Aged About 40 Years R/o Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil and District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Education, Mahanadi Bhavan Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat, Mahanadi Bhavan Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 – Collector Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Executive Officer Jila Panchayat, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Shubham Tripathi, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 3 For Respondent No. 4 : : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Panel Lawyer Mr. Ritesh Verma, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 16/06/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to all the writ petition and the respondents may kindly be directed to provide the salary of the petitioner from the date of her joining upto her duty as Shiksha Karmi Grade-II and also continue the service of petitioner on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-II, in the interest of justice. Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.06.17 18:50:20 +0530 2 10.2 Any other relief, which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be allowed.” 2. Mr. Shubham Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-II under respondent No. 4 vide order dated 07.02.2009. He would submit that a show cause notice was issued by respondent No. 4 to the effect that the petitioner remained absent from services for considerable period. He would further submit that the petitioner filed reply to show cause notice on 09.10.2012 showing health issues and she also claimed salary for period from 13.02.2009 till 16.06.2009. He would contend that the petitioner made various representations before the respondent authorities claiming therein salary, but till date a single penny has not been paid to the petitioner. He would submit that a direction may be issued to respondent No. 4 to make payment of salary with interest to the petitioner. Mr. Tripathi would submit that though there is no order of removal from services, but services of the petitioner have been discontinued. 3. On other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents would oppose. 4. Mr. Ritesh Verma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 would submit that though the petitioner joined services on 07.02.2009, but she never worked at the place of posting. He would contend that first show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 06.08.2009 and thereafter numerous show cause notices were issued on 30.03.2011 and 19.04.2012. He would submit that as the petitioner remained unauthorized absence, therefore, she has no right to claim salary or 3 arrears of salary. He would submit that this writ petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 5. Mr. Abhishek Singh, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents No. 1 to 3 would submit that there was dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 4. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-II vide order dated 07.02.2009 under respondent No. 4. It is alleged that the petitioner remained absence from services and this fact is evident from various show cause notices issued by respondent No. 4 which have been placed on record along with return filed by respondent No. 4. Initially a show cause notice was issued which was replied by the petitioner, but fact remains no action was taken by the department against the petitioner and she is still in the roll of Government Upper Primary School, Khongsara, Block Kota, District Bilaspur. Respondent No.4 has not assigned any sufficient reason for non-payment of salary to the petitioner. No document has been placed with regard to discontinuation of services, therefore, it cannot be presumed that the services of the petitioner have been discontinued. 8. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, respondent No. 4 is directed to permit the petitioner to discharge her duties. The petitioner would be at liberty to submit medical documents before respondent No. 4 and shall be at liberty to move application for grant of medical leave. Respondent No. 4 shall adjust the period of medical leave and shall make payment of salary of the remaining period strictly in accordance with law preferably within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The remaining period of absence 4 shall be adjusted against available earned leave and other admissible leave. 9. With the aforesaid direction(s) / observation(s), the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti