1 CGHC010282562018 2026:CGHC:29875 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5932 of 2018 1 - Vishnu Netam S/o Ram Prasad Netam, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Lakhanpuri, Post Podagaon, Tahsil Nagri, Distt. Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Distt. Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For petitioner : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For State : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, PL For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Ashish Shukla, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 15.07.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) : “(i) direct the respondents to release/pay all arrears of salary of the petitioner i.e. from 30/11/15 to 13/6/18 and further please to direct the respondents to grant all consequential benefit to the petitioner. -2- (ii). Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit be granted and the cost of the petitioner may also kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Secretary, Gram Panchayat Lakhanpuri, Block Nagari, District Dhamtari (C.G.). He would contend that the petitioner was removed from services contrary to the provisions contemplated under Rule 7 of the Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short ‘the Rules of 1999’) and said order was challenged by filing WP(S) No.6359 of 2016 before the High Court. He would further contend that the petition was disposed of vide order dated 12.01.2017 and the petitioner was granted liberty to approach the Appellate Authority. He would submit that the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, wherein, he challenged the order of removal from services and also claimed back wages and other consequential benefits. He would further submit that the Commissioner vide order dated 31.05.2018, quashed the order of removal from services dated 30.11.2015 but failed to consider the claim of the petitioner with regard to back wages and other consequential benefits. It is contended by Mr. Kotecha that as the order of removal from services was already quashed by the Commissioner on the ground that procedure contemplated in the Rules was not followed, the authority concerned ought to have granted back wages and consequential benefits attached to the post. It is also contended by Mr. Kotecha that respondent No.3/Chief Executive Officer, Dhamtari vide order dated 13.06.2018, denied back wages to the 3 petitioner. He would pray to allow this petition. 3. On the other hand, learned Advocates appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions. They would submit that though in the memo of appeal, relief was sought for with regard to arrears of wages and consequential benefits but that ground was not pressed before the Commissioner and therefore, no observation has been made in the order dated 31.05.2018. They would further submit that the ground which was not raised before the Appellate Authority/ Commissioner, said ground cannot be raised before this Court or it cannot be said that the Commissioner failed to consider the relief sought for by the petitioner. They would submit that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. It appears that in the memo of appeal, the petitioner specifically sought for back wages and other consequential benefits but this issue was not considered by the Commissioner even though the order of removal from services was quashed. As there was no observation in the order passed by the Commissioner dated 31.05.2018 with regard to back wages and other consequential benefits, respondent No.3 declined back wages to the petitioner vide order dated 13.06.2018. As the order dated 13.06.2018 has been passed by respondent No.3, which is appealable in accordance with Rule 3 of the Rules of 1999, therefore, this petition, at this juncture, is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of -4- the petitioner to prefer a duly constituted appeal before the Commissioner Division, Raipur and in turn, the said authority is directed to decide it expeditiously strictly in accordance with law keeping in mind that the order of removal from service has been set aside on the ground that the provisions of Section 7 of the Rules of 1999 were not followed. 6. With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha