1 2026:CGHC:25416 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2897 of 2022 1 - Uttam Kumar Chouhan S/o Late Natthuram Chouhan Aged About 37 Years Working As Assistant Grade-3, Government Higher Secondary School Kashichunva, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Deep Kumar Patel W/o Gourishankar Patel Aged About 31 Years Working As Assistant Grade-3, Government Higher Secondary School Nandeli, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Bheesham Narayan Sahu S/o Late Ram Kumar Sahu Aged About 33 Years Working As Assistant Grade-3, Government Higher Secondary School Kotarliya, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Arun Kumar Patel S/o Late Roop Lal Patel Aged About 31 Years Working As Assistant Grade-3, Government Higher Secondary School Loing, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director Public Instructions, School Education Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 5 - District Education Officer Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 6 - The Principal Kirodimal Institute Of Technology, Gadhumariya, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents -2- For petitioners : Mr. Vikas Dubey, Advocate For State : Mr. T.L. Bareth, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 22.06.2026 1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking following relief (s) : “10.1 To kindly call for the records of the case from the respondents. 10.2 To kindly set aside the order dated 8/3/2021 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent no. 5. 10.3 To kindly quash the enquiry report dated 28/11/2020 (Annexure P/9) submitted by respondent no. 4 10.4 To kindly direct the respondent to grant Computer Intensive Allowance to the petitioners as per provisions of circular dated 3/4/2013. 10.5 Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 2. The facts in brief are that the petitioners were appointed on the post of Assistant Grade-III in School Education Department and at present, they are posted in District Raigarh under respondent No.5. He would further submit that a Circular dated 03.04.2013 was issued by the State Government, wherein, decision was taken for grant Rs.500/- Computer incentive allowance to Assistant Grade -III employees, who qualify departmental computer skill test of 8000 key-depression per hour speed in Hindi and English. He would contend that skill test was conducted on 14.03.2020. The petitioners participated and they were declared passed and subsequently, they were extended benefit of computer allowance 3 of Rs.500/- per month. It is argued by Mr. Dubey that without affording any opportunity of hearing, respondent No.5 cancelled the order dated 19.03.2020 whereby, the petitioners were extended benefit of computer allowance. He would contend that said order was passed by the District Education Officer on 08.03.2021 on the basis of an inquiry conducted by a Committee but no opportunity of hearing was afforded and inquiry was conducted behind the back of the petitioner. He would submit that respondent No.1 has not cancelled or recalled the Circular dated 14.08.2015, therefore, the inquiry report dated 28.11.2020 as well as impugned order dated 08.03.2021 are bad in law. 3. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondents/State would oppose the submissions. He would submit that various complaints were received by the department with regard to malpractice adopted in the computer skill examination conducted on 14.03.2020 and therefore, a Committee was constituted, which inquired into the matter and found the allegations true and therefore, decision was taken to withdraw the benefit extended to the petitioners. He would further contend that the petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. The examination for grant of computer allowance of Rs.500/- was -4- taken pursuant to Circular dated 14.08.2015. The petitioners appeared in the examination and they passed it. Pursuant to result declared by the Testing Agency, the petitioners were extended benefit of computer allowance of Rs.500/- per month but respondent No.5 cancelled it vide order dated 08.03.2021. 6. It appears that decision was taken by respondent No.5 pursuant to an inquiry conducted by the Committee but opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the petitioners. The order dated 08.03.2021 was passed by respondent No.5, based on inquiry report and again no opportunity of hearing was afforded. In that premises of the matter, impugned order dated 08.03.2021 (Annexure P/1) as well as inquiry report dated 28.11.2020 (Annexure P/9) are hereby quashed. The respondent authorities would be at liberty to conduct a fresh inquiry after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 7. With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha