1 / 3 CGHC010270922026 2026:CGHC:30161 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5369 of 2026 Dhaniyaram Banjare S/o Late Shyamlal Banjare Aged About 44 Years R/o Village- Balpur, Police Station- Sarsiwa, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2. District Education Officer Sarangarh, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) 3. Block Education Officer Bilaigarh, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) 4. Head Master Govt. Primary School, Samtanagar, Tihlipali, Block- Bilaigarh, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Divya Sahu , Advocate For Respondents/ State : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Dy. G.A. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 16/07/2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as a temporary Sweeper on 23.12.2013 and remained absent from duty only on account of his judicial custody after being implicated in a criminal case. He submits that the petitioner has been acquitted of all the charges by judgment dated 13.05.2026, yet the respondents have not permitted him to JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.07.17 11:29:55 +0530 2 / 3 resume his duties nor passed any order in that regard. It is contended that the continued denial of employment is arbitrary and he prays that the respondents be directed to allow the petitioner to rejoin his duties with all consequential benefits. 2. Learned State counsel opposes the writ petition and submits that the petitioner was engaged only on a temporary basis and has no vested or indefeasible right to claim reinstatement merely on the basis of his acquittal in the criminal case. He submits that acquittal by itself does not automatically entitle the petitioner to resume service and the competent authority is required to consider his case in accordance with the applicable rules, terms of engagement and administrative requirements. It is further submitted that no order terminating the services of the petitioner is under challenge in the present petition and, therefore, the relief sought is not maintainable. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents appended thereto. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the petitioner has sought a direction to permit him to resume his duties solely on the basis of the judgment of acquittal dated 13.05.2026. However, acquittal in a criminal case, by itself, does not confer an enforceable right to claim reinstatement or continuation in service, particularly when the petitioner was engaged on a temporary basis. 3 / 3 5. The question as to whether the petitioner is entitled to resume his duties is required to be considered by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable rules, terms and conditions of engagement and the prevailing administrative requirements. In the present case, no order terminating the services of the petitioner has been challenged nor has any decision of the competent authority declining his claim been placed on record. In absence thereof, no writ of mandamus can be issued directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to rejoin his duties. 6. Accordingly, finding no merit in the writ petition, the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Jyoti