Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 26834 (CHH)

DIVYA CHANDRA v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPS/5722/2018 · 2026-07-14

Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 CGHC010266522018 2026:CGHC:29856 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5722 of 2018 1 - Divya Chandra W/o Prakash Singh Chandra Aged About 34 Years Presently Posted Lecturer (Panchayat) At Government Higher Secondary, Bhaisma, R/o House No. 28, Arrigation Colony, Rampur, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 4 - District Education Officer, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 5 - Block Education Officer Block - Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ishan Saluja, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Pallav Mishra, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 15/07/2026 2 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to count the petitioner services from the date of appointment not from the date of joining. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct to consider the candidature of the petitioner for absorption in School Education Department with effect of 01.07.2018 as the petitioner completed 8 years i.e. from the date of joining 02.07.2010. 10.3 To kindly grant any other writ/ writs, order/ orders, relief/ reliefs in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 2. Mr. Ishan Saluja, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Shikshakarmi Grade-I vide order dated 30.06.2010 and she completed 08 years of services on 30.06.2018. He would contend that a policy decision was taken by the State Government to absorb services of all Shikshakarmis with the School Education Department and orders were issued in favour of all Shikshakarmis on 01.07.2018, but services of the petitioner were absorbed with effect from 01.07.2019 for the reasons best known to the respondent authorities. 3. On the other hand, learned Advocates appearing for the respondents would refer Annexure – P/5 dated 02.07.2018 which states that the 3 Shikshakarmis who completed 08 years of services on 01.07.2019 and their services would be absorbed with effect from 01.07.2019. They would submit that the orders were issued with regard to absorption of services of all Shikshakarmis on 01.07.2019. They would submit that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. It appears that the petitioner completed 08 years of services prior to 01.07.2018 and no reason has been assigned by the respondent authorities while ignoring the name of the petitioner for absorption of her services, whereas services of most of Shikshakarmis, who had completed 08 years of service on the said date, were absorbed with effect from 01.07.2018. This is the case where petitioner had completed 08 years of service prior to 01.07.2018, she is entitled for similar treatment. 6. Having considered above discussed facts, the respondent authorities are directed to take decision with regard to absorption of services of the petitioner with effect from 01.07.2018 and appropriate order shall be passed within a period of 03 months from today after due verification of service records. 7. The petitioner would be at liberty to make representation before the respondent authorities claiming consequential benefits attached to the post. 8. With the aforesaid direction(s) / observation(s), this petition is disposed of. sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha