1 CGHC010311642026 2026:CGHC:35847 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6072 of 2026 Santoshi Tandan W/o Ravindra Tandan Aged About 30 Years Working As Teacher (E-Cadre) At Government Middle School Khamhariya (A), Block Patan, District- Durg, (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director Directorate Of Public Instruction Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.) 3 - The Joint Director Education Division, District- Durg , (C.G.) 4 - The Collector Durg, District- Durg, (C.G.) 5 - The District Education Officer Durg, District- Durg, (C.G.) 6 - The Block Education Officer Block- Patan, District- Durg, (C.G.) 2 ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri R.K. Verma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Diksha Gouraha, Advocate HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU Order on Board 13.08.2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Teacher (E-Cadre) on 03.06.2022 and was posted at Government Middle School Khamhariya (A), Block Patan, District Durg (C.G.). He further submits that the petitioner was dismissed from service by order dated 21.04.2023 on the ground that she had cleared the Chhattisgarh Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) prior to completion of her graduation. However, the said dismissal order was subsequently cancelled by the State Government vide order dated 04.10.2023, wherein it was found that the petitioner was a graduate and had also cleared the TET as well as the recruitment examination and, therefore, his appointment was valid. Consequently, the petitioner was permitted to resume her duties at his original place of posting. 3 2. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner resumed her duties in compliance of the aforesaid order, but despite cancellation of the dismissal order and reinstatement in service, the respondents have illegally withheld the salary and consequential service benefits for the intervening period from 21.04.2023 to 05.10.2023. It is submitted that the petitioner submitted several representations before the respondent authorities seeking release of the said salary, but no effective action has been taken thereon. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the issue involved in the present petition is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in WPS No. 4144 of 2026 (Sushil Kumar Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), decided on 14.05.2026, wherein, in similar circumstances, this Court directed payment of salary for the intervening period by applying Fundamental Rule 54-A(3). It is submitted that the petitioner is also entitled to the benefit of the said provision. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the claim of the petitioner may be considered in accordance with the applicable service rules and the order dated 04.10.2023 passed by the competent authority. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Perusal of the record would show that the petitioner was appointed as Teacher (E-Cadre) on 03.06.2022 and was subsequently dismissed from service vide order dated 21.04.2023 on the ground that she had cleared the TET prior to completion of graduation. However, vide order dated 04.10.2023, the competent authority cancelled the dismissal order after recording a finding that the petitioner was a graduate and had also cleared the TET and recruitment examination and, therefore, his appointment was valid. The petitioner was consequently permitted to resume his duties. 7. For ready reference, FR 54-A(3) is reproduced hereinbelow:- “FR 54-A xxx xxx xxx (3) If the dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement of a Government servant is set aside by the Court on the merits of the case, the period intervening between the date of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, including the period of suspension preceding such dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be, and the date of reinstatement shall be treated 5 as duty for all purposes and he shall be paid the full pay and allowances for the period to which he would have been entitled had he not been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired or suspended prior to such dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be.” 8. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that where the order of dismissal is set aside on merits and the employee is reinstated in service, the intervening period is liable to be treated as duty for all purposes and the employee becomes entitled to full pay and allowances for the said period. 9. In the present case, the competent authority, vide order dated 04.10.2023, cancelled the dismissal order after recording that the petitioner was a graduate and had also cleared the TET and recruitment examination and that her appointment was valid. Thus, the very basis on which the petitioner was dismissed from service was found to be erroneous by the competent authority. Consequently, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the salary for the intervening period on the ground that the order of reinstatement did not specifically 6 provide for payment of salary for the said period. 10. This Court has also considered the identical issue in WPS No. 4144 of 2026 (Sushil Kumar Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), decided on 14.05.2026, wherein the benefit of FR 54- A(3) was extended to the employee and payment of salary for the intervening period was directed. The ratio laid down therein squarely applies to the facts of the present case. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to salary and allowances for the period from 21.04.2023 to 05.10.2023, treating the said period as duty in accordance with FR 54-A(3). However, the petitioner is not entitled for any interest, while releasing the salary and allowances for the aforesaid period. 12. Consequently, the respondents are directed to release the salary and admissible allowances of the petitioner for the period from 21.04.2023 to 05.10.2023, treating the said period as duty for all purposes, within a period of 50 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Shoaib