1 CGHC010158892022 2026:CGHC:27438 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3477 of 2022 Smt. Vrinda Gupta W/o Late Nirmalkant Gupta Aged About 63 Years R/o Boury Para, Near Alka Industries, Rajesh Store Gali, Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - District Public Instructions Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - District Education Officer Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Holly Cross Convent Higher Secondary School Through Principal, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. (As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 28-11-2024) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate along with Ms. A. Sandhya Rao, Advocate For respective Respondent(s) : Mr. A. N. Pandey, Advocate Ms. Veethika Choubey, Panel Lawyer Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 03/07/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition by directing respondents to pay withheld salary from 01.09.2020 to 11.02.2021 with 18% interest per annum, since he has worked in school as per reappointment order and continued to work until the end of session i.e. 30.04.2021, therefore it be held that release of part salary from 12.02.2021 to 30.04.2021 vide Annexure P/4 is illegal, while petitioner is entitled salary from 01.09.2020 till 11.02.2021 for the period worked together with 18% interest per annum till payment holding that withholding of wages from 01.09.2020 to 11.02.2021 is illegal and without authority. 10.2 Costs of the petition be awarded and 10.3 Any other relief or direction which the Hon'ble Court may deems fit, be also awarded.” 2. Mr. H. B. Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner retired from the post of Lecturer after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.08.2020. He would further submit that the petitioner was reappointed on 01.09.2020 in the same institution on the post of Lecturer, where she worked up to 11.09.2021. He would also submit that respondent No. 4 made payment of honorarium for the period from 12.02.2021 till 30.04.2021, but failed to make payment for the period from 01.09.2020 to 11.09.2021. He would refer to the document Annexure R/4, wherein it has been stated that approval was granted by the Deputy Director, Directorate of Public Instructions, Raipur, for the reappointment of the petitioner and other teachers. He would pray to allow this petition. 3. On the other hand, Ms. Choubey, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the 3 petitioner and submit that the petitioner was never reappointed on 01.09.2020 and there is no document to establish that she worked from 01.09.2020 to 11.09.2021. 4. Mr. A.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 would submit that the petitioner worked from 12.02.2021 till 30.04.2021 and, for the said period, honorarium has already been paid to her. He would submit that the petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. The petitioner retired from the post of Lecturer on 31.08.2020. With regard to the alleged reappointment of the petitioner on 01.09.2020, there is no supporting document on record. With regard to the document-Annexure P/2, same was issued by the District Education Officer on 01.09.2020, whereby approval was sought for reappointment of the petitioner on the post of Lecturer. 7. From perusal of the documents, it is evident that no permission was granted by the Deputy Director for the alleged reappointment of the petitioner on 01.09.2020. Further, permission for reappointment of the petitioner was granted by the Deputy Director, Directorate of Public Instructions, Raipur vide order dated 19.03.2021 (Annexure R-4/4); thus, there is no document on record to establish the fact that the petitioner had worked from 01.09.2020 till 11.09.2021. 8. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim