1 CGHC010281042021 2026:CGHC:38285 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6106 of 2021 1 - Gokaran Prasad Sharma S/o Gokaran Prasad Sharma Aged About 63 Years Retired From The Post Of Headmaster, R/o C/3 Ma Amola Billa Colony Near Hari Amrit, Mopka Road Bilaspur, District (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education Mahanadi Bhawan, Atalnagar Raipur, District - Raipur(C.G.) 2 - The Director School Education Department Indrawati Bhawan Atalnagar Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Joint Director Treasury, Account And Pension Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - The District Education Officer Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Block Education Officer Pendra Road District - Bilaspur Now District - Gorela-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.) ---- Respondents For petitioner : Mr. A.N. Pandey Advocate For State : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 31.08.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) : “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside of the impugned order dated 16.4.2021 passed by the respondent no.2. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to pay the arrears of regular pay scale of assistant teacher from the initial date of appointment of the petitioner i.e 14.9.1977 within stipulated period. 10.3 Any other relief or reliefs may also be granted to -2- the petitioner which this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10.4 Cost of this petition..” 2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was initially selected for Basic Training Institute as a Trainee (for short, ‘BTI’) on a stipend of Rs.100/- per month vide order dated 14.09.1977 issued by the District Coordinator, Tribal Development Department, Bilaspur. After completion of the training, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher vide order dated 27.10.1979. The petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation and thereafter preferred this petition, claiming salary for the period from the date he was selected for BTI training till the date of his appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that the petitioner was selected by the Teachers Selection Committee vide order dated 14.09.1977 and initially, he was being paid a stipend of Rs.100/- per month. He would contend that as the petitioner was selected against a vacant and sanctioned post of Assistant Teacher, he is entitled to full salary for said period. Mr. Pandey would submit that subsequently, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher vide order dated 27.10.1979. He would pray to allow this petition. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Kumrani, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents, would oppose the submissions. He would submit that the petitioner was initially selected for BTI training and after completion of the training, he was appointed as Assistant Teacher. He would submit that the petitioner was being 3 paid a stipend of Rs.100/- per month during the training period and was never appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher during said period. Therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner was initially selected for BTI training by the District Coordinator, Tribal Development Department, Bilaspur, vide order dated 14.09.1977. The order dated 14.09.1977, vide Annexure P/2, would reveal that the selected candidates were being paid a stipend of Rs.100/- per month. The said order clarifies that the candidates were selected for training alone and were not appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher against any sanctioned and vacant post. 7. Subsequently, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher vide order dated 27.10.1979. During his service tenure, the petitioner never raised any claim for salary for the period from 14.09.1977 to 27.10.1979. As the petitioner was not appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher vide order dated 14.09.1977 and was subsequently appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher vide order dated 27.10.1979, the claim of the petitioner for regular salary for the intervening period is misconceived. Accordingly, this petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha