1 2026:CGHC:24530 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3895 of 2023 Judgment Reserved On :20.04.2026. Judgment Delivered On :18.06.2026. Ramadhar Patel S/o. Late Shri Bhagatram, Aged About 53 Years R/o. Village - Donganala, P.S - Pali, Post - Bawsahi, District - Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Pali, Block - Pali, District - Korba Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Nevsa, Post - Utarda Tehsil - Hardi Bazaar District - Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Anju Ahuja, Advocate. For State/Respondent : Ms. Vartika Shrivastava, PL. For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Akansha Verma Dabhadker, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Shri Ravi Kumar Bhagat, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Order AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.06.18 19:08:07 +0530 2 1. By way of this Writ Petition, the petitioner is challenging part of order dated 12.02.2021 (Annexure P/4) passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Korba Chhattisgarh whereby reinstatement of the petitioner into the services has been done belatedly after about 1 year though the same was directed by this Court vide order dated 09.03.2020 passed in WPS No.4029 of 2011. The petitioner has also challenged the illegality committed by respondent authorities in treating the petitioner to as a fresh candidate and giving him low salary and further, from 16.03.2020 till 15.02.2021 i.e. the intervening period between the receipt of representation of the petitioner by the respondent authorities for reinstatement and the petitioner being actually reinstated in service. 2. Reliefs as pleaded by the petitioner in the petition are as follows:- 10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents to place all the records of the case for kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash/modify clarify the portion of order dated 12/02/2021 ANNEXURF P4. The petitioner be reinstated into service from 9/03/2020 and accordingly he be paid his due salary along with interest. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the petitioner his correct salary, treating him to be appointed since 17/10/1995 10.4 That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents, to give all consequential benefits and increments to the petitioner along with interest. 10.5 That, such other reliefs as the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be granted to the petitioner in the interest. of justice. 10.6 That cost of petition be also granted. 3 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner vide order dated 17.10.1995 was appointed as Panchayat Secretary of Gram Panchayat Donganala, Block Pali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. Subsequently, on 27.01.2007, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner alleging certain misconduct against the petitioner in respect of false signature being put in the Ration Card and frivolous funds being withdrawn. The petitioner immediately submitted reply to the show cause notice on 01.02.2007. Thereafter, the Respondent no.3 withdrew the financial powers that were with the petitioner in the capacity of a Panchayat Secretary and ordered him to discharge other duties as Panchayat Karmi. The petitioner was again issued with a show cause notice in respect of as to why his services should not be terminated. Immediately, thereafter the order dated 11.05.2007 terminating the petitioner as a Panchayat Secretary was passed. Challenging the said order of termination, the petitioner preferred a WPS No. 4029/2011. After considering the submissions of the parties and rules governing the field, this Court set aside/quashed the order of termination from service dated 11.05.2007 holding the same to be in contravention of the provisions of Rule 7 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 and directed that the petitioner shall be reinstated in service. The petitioner submitted representation before the respondent authorities dated 16/03/2020 for his reinstatement, however, when the respondent authorities/contemnors did not reinstate the petitioner back in service, the petitioner made a representation before the Collector, Korba on 09/06/2020 along with the copy of this Court’s order dated 09/03/2020. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a contempt petition before this Court which came to be registered as Contempt Case(C) No. 132/2021. 4 During the pendency of the contempt petition, the petitioner vide order dated 12/02/2021 (impugned order in this petition) was reinstated into service on the post of Gram Panchayat Secretary. The petitioner in compliance of order dated 12/2/2021 immediately gave his joining on 15/2/2021 (Annexure P/5), however, the respondents paid the salary to the petitioner from May 2021 without any justification. It is pleaded that the order dated 9/3/2020 passed in WP(S) 4029/2011 is not complied in its true spirit. The respondents cannot reinstate the petitioner as per their own wishes almost after a year. Further, not paying the salary during the intervening period from 16.03.2020 to 15.02.2021 is also contemptuous and amounts to willful and deliberate disobedience to order passed by this Court. Moreover, the contempt case(c) No.132/2021 was finally disposed of reserving the liberty in favour of the petitioner to assail portion of the order which stands still unfulfilled. The respondents are treating the petitioners as freshly appointed candidate and are paying him salary of rupees 10,000- 11,000 as evident from bank statement (Annexure P/7). As per order dated 09/03/2020 passed in WPS No.4029 of 2011, the period right from the date of appointment i.e. 17.10.95 till date would be counted as period spent on duty for all other purposes by giving the petitioner notional fixation and accordingly the petitioner should be paid the salary but the respondents are acting contrary to that. The petitioner is receiving low salary while his other batch mates are receiving salary around 35,000/-. Hence this Petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that that though order for reinstatement of the petitioner into the service was passed by this Court on 09.03.2020 in WPS No.4029 of 2011 and the petitioner moved before the competent authority along with the said order for reinstatement on 16.03.2020, 5 yet he was reinstated after an unexplainable delay of almost 1 year on 12.02.2021, which caused unbearable financial hardship to the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner has not been granted salary for the intervening period between 16.03.2020 i.e. date of receipt of petitioner’s representation by the respondent authorities for reinstatement till 15.02.2021 i.e. the day when the petitioner as a consequence of his reinstatement gave his joining. 5. Leaned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court vide order dated 09.03.2020 passed in WPS No.4029 of 2011 directed for reinstatement of the petitioner and considering the fact that petitioner was out of service from 2007 till the date of passing of order dated 09.03.2020, the Court by applying the doctrine of “No work No pay” did not grant back wages to the petitioner for the said period, however, the Court explicitly observed that intervening period would be counted as period spent on duty for all other purposes by giving the petitioner notional fixation. On this particular note, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite such an observation, the petitioner is being treated as a freshly appointed candidate by the respondent department and he is being paid low salary between 10,000-11,000, which is wholly unsustainable. On this backdrop, he submits that this Petition deserves to be allowed. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that since the petitioner is serving in the office of Respondent Nos.2 & 3 as such, the said respondents are answerable to this petition, however, the petitioner joined the services on 15.02.2021, as such, he is entitled to get service benefits from that date. 7. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 submits that the petitioner has never filed an application before Respondent No.2, therefore, they were not aware about the facts situation as alleged by the petitioner. She submits that after receipt of 6 representation dated 16.03.2020, necessary action was taken regarding the reinstatement of the petitioner though due to procedural formalities, the same could not be concluded within short span of time. The delay as alleged by the petitioner happened on account of covid-19 pandemic prevalent at that time, as such, the delay cannot be wholly attributable to the respondent department. Further, so far as plea for low salary is raised, the same is granted to the petitioner in accordance with law. 8. Learned counsel for Respondent No.3 submits that Respondent No. 2 is the appointing authority as well as the disciplinary authority of the petitioner, and all service-related matters including appointment, termination, reinstatement, and payment of salary are exclusively within the domain of Respondent No. 2. The petitioner is directly answerable to Respondent No. 2 and performs his duties under their supervision and directions. Role of Respondent No. 3 is merely limited and supervisory in nature, confined only to administrative aspects such as marking attendance, maintaining records, and monitoring the day-to-day functioning of the petitioner at the Block level i.e. Janpad Panchayat - Pali. Such limited supervisory control does not in any manner create or establish an employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and Respondent No. 3. It is further submitted that the salary and other emoluments payable to the petitioner are disbursed by Respondent No. 2, thereby clearly establishing that Respondent No. 2 is the actual employer of the petitioner in terms of service jurisprudence. Respondent No.3 has neither any role nor any authority in matters relating to appointment, termination, or reinstatement of the petitioner as their role is purely administrative and limited in scope, and does not extend to taking any substantive service-related decisions. Therefore, any allegation regarding 7 delay in reinstatement or non-compliance of the order passed by this Court cannot be attributed to the Respondent No.3 in any manner whatsoever. The entire responsibility, if any, lies solely with Respondent No. 2, who is the competent authority to act in the matter. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available with the petition carefully. 10. From the perusal of record, it appears that the petitioner was terminated from the services of Panchayat Secretary without following the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 vide order dated 11.05.2007. The said order of termination was subjected to judicial scrutiny in WPS No.4029 of 2011 and this Court, after due consideration, vide order dated 09.03.2020, set aside the order of termination holding the same to be unsustainable in the eyes of law and directed reinstatement of the petitioner in service. While doing so, this Court bearing in mind the fact that though the order of termination was passed in the year 2007 and the petition was filed after four years in the year 2011, denied back wages for the period the petitioner remained out of service by applying the principle of “No Work No Pay”, however, it categorically observed that the intervening period shall be counted as period spent on duty for all other purposes with notional fixation. This observation of the Court implies that the the period during which the petitioner was not in service would be counted as period on duty for purposes like higher salary, seniority and other service benefits. 11. The petitioner taking the order dated 09.03.2020 in his hands approached the Respondent Nos.3 & 4 as well as concerned Collector by filing filing appropriate application. However, the same was of no avail to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a contempt petition(C) No.132 of 2021 wherein, he brought on 8 record the order of reinstatement in service dated 12.02.2021. This Court while taking into account the fact that order of reinstatement has been passed in favour of the petitioner though belatedly, was satisfied that substantial compliance of order dated 09.03.2020 has been made and as such, disposed of the contempt petition reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to assail the portion of the impugned order therein which stands unfulfilled by way of a fresh proceedings altogether, In this way, the present writ petition has been filed. 12. It is an admitted position that petitioner submitted his representation for reinstatement in the services which was duly received by the respondent department on 16.03.2020. However, reinstatement was granted only on 12.02.2021 and he joined on 15.02.2021. The explanation of the respondents regarding procedural delay and COVID-19 pandemic cannot justify a delay of nearly one year in implementing a judicial order, particularly when the petitioner had approached the authorities promptly. 13.Once the order of termination was set aside and reinstatement directed, the employer-employee relationship stood restored. The respondents were under a legal obligation to implement the order within a reasonable time. The delay in reinstatement, being attributable to the respondents, cannot prejudice the petitioner. 14.On the basis of above discussion, this Court finds that petitioner had expressed his readiness and willingness to join duty, as such, denial of salary for the period from 16.03.2020 to 15.02.2021 is simply not justifiable as the delay in taking the petitioner back in service cannot be attributable to the petitioner. Therefore, the principle of “No Work No Pay” cannot be extended to this period. Hence, the 9 petitioner is entitled for salary for the said intervening period i.e. from 16.03.2020 to 15.02.2021. 15. Now moving towards the second grievance of giving the petitioner that he is being paid low salary between Rs.10,000-11,000/-. 16. The action of the respondents in treating the petitioner as a freshly appointed employee and paying him salary in the range of 10,000–11,000 is directly ₹ contrary to the specific direction issued by this Court in its order dated 09.03.2020 in WPS No.4029 of 2011. The said order clearly mandated counting of the intervening period as period spent on duty for all other purposes with notional fixation. This necessarily includes continuity of service, seniority, increments and proper pay fixation. The petitioner cannot be deprived of such service benefits according to the whims and fancies of the respondents. 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dinesh Chandra Sharma Dead through Lrs. v. Bhartiya Paryatan Vikas Nigam Ltd. And Another, {2025 SCC OnLine SC 3003} observed in paragraph 11, which reads as under: 11. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the materials on record. In Deepali Gundu1 (supra), the judgment relied by the High Court, this Court, in paragraph 22, had observed as follows: 22…….These sufferings continue till the competent adjudicatory forum decides on the legality of the action taken by the employer. The reinstatement of such an employee, which is preceded by a finding of the competent judicial/quasi-judicial body or court that the action taken by the employer is ultra vires the relevant statutory provisions or the principles of natural justice, entitles the employee to claim full back wages. If the employer wants to deny back wages to the employee or contest his entitlement to get consequential benefits, then it is for him/her to specifically plead and prove that during the intervening period the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same emoluments. The 1 (2013) 10 SCC 324 10 denial of back wages to an employee, who has suffered due to an illegal act of the employer would amount to indirectly punishing the employee concerned and rewarding the employer by relieving him of the obligation to pay back wages including the emoluments.” 18.The respondents, therefore, acted illegally in not granting notional increments and proper pay fixation from the date of initial appointment i.e. 17.10.1995. Though the petitioner is not entitled to back wages for the period from 2007 to 09.03.2020, he is certainly entitled to continuity of service and corresponding pay fixation benefits. 19. As a consequence of the foregoing discussion, the petitioner is directed to be paid salary for the intervening period from 16.03.2020 to 15.02.2021. While computing the said salary, the respondents shall take into account continuity of service of the petitioner for the purpose of higher pay scale, increments and all other consequential service benefits. 20. The petitioner shall be paid salary henceforth 16.03.2020 on the pay scale which he would have drawn had he been continued in regular service in terms of the order dated 09.03.2020, after granting notional fixation and increments. The salary already drawn by the petitioner from 16.03.2020 be adjusted accordingly by the Department, in accordance with law. 21.With the aforesaid observation/direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash 11 The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 20.04.2026 18.06.2026 ------ 18.06.2026