1 2026:CGHC:8704 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3649 of 2023 Uttam Kumar Thakur S/o. Late Shri Pawan Singh Thakur, Aged About 69 Years Caste- Gond, R/o. Village- Baiga Khamariya, Post- Salhebhata, P.S. Koma Khan, District- Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through, The Secretary, Department Of Revenue & Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Commissioner (Land Record Branch), Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector (Land Record Branch) Gariyaband, District- Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Gariyaband, District- Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh 5 - Tehsildar Gariyaband, District- Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, Dy. Advocate General Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 18.02.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following reliefs :- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ (s), order (s), direction (s) by quashing the impugned order YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.02.20 18:39:50 +0530 2 dated 25/04/2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by the office of respondent no. 1 herein and further directing the respondent authorities to release/disburse the service retiral benefits, like Salary from 26/02/2008 to 31/07/2016, together with Retiral Dues and Pensionary benefits and other ancillary benefits of petitioner's services, within time frame, unto the petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records from the respondents authorities for its kind perusal. 10.3 Any other relief, which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as Cartographer (Map Maker) in the office of the Tehsil, Gariyaband. The petitioner rendered services on the said post from 26.02.2008 till 31.07.2016. During the course of service, while posted in the Tehsil Office, Gariyaband, the petitioner suffered from serious health ailments and remained on sanctioned sick leave and earned leave from time to time, duly informing the competent authorities. On 31.07.2016, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation (62 years) and retired from service. It is pertinent to submit that at no point of time was the petitioner placed under suspension nor was any suspension order or departmental proceeding initiated or served upon him prior to his retirement. 3 3. After retirement, the petitioner repeatedly approached the respondent authorities seeking disbursement of his lawful dues, including salary for the period from 26.02.2008 to 31.07.2016, along with all retiral and pensionary benefits. However, instead of deciding the claim, the respondent authorities merely exchanged inter-departmental correspondences without granting any substantive relief. 4. The petitioner submitted various representations, the last of which was dated 23.03.2021. As no decision was taken, the petitioner preferred Writ Petition (S) No. 4247/2021 before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 16.08.2021 with a direction to the competent authority to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law. Despite the aforesaid direction, the respondents failed to decide the claim within a reasonable time, compelling the petitioner to file Contempt Case (C) No. 217/2022. 5. During pendency of the contempt proceedings, respondent No. 1 passed the impugned order dated 25.04.2023 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for service salary and retiral benefits. In view of the said order, the contempt petition was closed on 28.04.2023. 6. Being aggrieved by the arbitrary and illegal rejection of his legitimate service and retiral dues vide order dated 25.04.2023, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition challenging 4 the said impugned order and seeking appropriate directions for release of salary, pensionary and all consequential benefits. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been illegally deprived of her legitimate service and retiral benefits. It is contended that the petitioner has not been paid salary for the period from 26.02.2008 to 30.01.2016 and, further, pensionary benefits and other ancillary benefits arising out of her service have also not been extended to her in full. On account of such denial of lawful dues, the petitioner was left with no alternative but to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court by filing the present writ petition. It is further submitted that the action of the respondent authorities in withholding the aforesaid benefits is arbitrary, unjustified and contrary to the settled principles governing service jurisprudence. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that there exists a break in service for the period from 26.02.2008 to 30.01.2016 and that the petitioner did not discharge duties during the said period. It is, therefore, contended that in view of the settled principle of “no work, no pay”, the petitioner is not entitled to salary for the aforesaid duration. Learned State counsel further submits that insofar as other retiral and pensionary benefits are concerned, the same have already been considered and extended to the petitioner in accordance with the applicable rules, and no further amount remains due on that account. 5 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. In view of the submissions advanced, particularly the stand taken by the respondent-State that the salary for the aforesaid period has been denied on account of an alleged break in service and application of the principle of “no work, no pay”, and further that other retiral and pensionary benefits have already been granted, this Court is of the opinion that no further adjudication is required at this stage in the present proceedings. 11. So far as denial of salary on the ground of “No Work No Pay” is concerned, the petitioner is granted liberty to approach the competent authority by submitting a detailed representation. Upon receipt of such representation, the concerned authority shall consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law within a period of 60 days from the date of its receipt. 12. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim, and the authority shall be at liberty to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. 13. Accordingly, with the aforesaid observations and recording the respective submissions of the parties, the present petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh