1 2026:CGHC:16114 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1527 of 2022 1 - Prashant Kumar Singh S/o Upendra Singh Aged About 37 Years Working As Teacher (L.B.), At Govt. Middle School Madanpur, Block Kharsiya, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. Behind Kekubai Hostel, Hamalpara, Kharsiya, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department, Of Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 3 - Principal Govt. Middle School Madanpur, Block Kharsiya, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner/s : Shri Nasimuddin Ansari, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Abhishek Singh, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 08 .04.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be called for the record. NIRMALA RAO 2 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pay the salary from the period of August, December 2018, May Jun August 2019, February March July August of 2021 and (petitioner got deducted salary of July 2019 and September 2019 to January 2020, February March, July August September October November December 2021, January February of 2022. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be direct the respondent authority to give a Arrears, increment with 18% interest. 10.4 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be passed in favor of the petitioner together with cost of the petition.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner remained present in his office and this fact is evident from his pay-slips. Despite this, he was marked absent for a period of 191 days and his salary for the said period has not been paid. He would contend that a representation was made pursuant to order passed in WP(S) No.5485 of 2021 and same has been rejected by the District Collector, Raigarh vide order dated 20.12.2021. He would submit that since the petitioner was on duty and never applied for leave, a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to make payment of arrears of salary for a period of 191 days. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that the petitioner remained absent from duty and, as no leave was available in his account, his application has been rejected. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents available on record. 5. The petitioner has pleaded that he was on duty and never applied for leave whereas according to return, he remained absent for 191 days. Consequently, the salary for the said period was not paid. Whether the petitioner was actually on duty or absent is a disputed question of fact that can only be determined by the Competent Civil Court. 6. Taking into consideration the issue involved in the present case, in my opinion, this writ petition is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to avail the remedy available under the law. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi