1 2026:CGHC:17207 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3209 of 2022  Bhagirati Kaiwartya S/o Shri Budhaw Ram Kaiwartya Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Budgahan, Tahsil Janhgeet District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh Posted At Panchayat Secretary, Birkoni, Janpad Panchayat, Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department Mantralaya Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. Collector, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. 3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Janjgir Champa District Janjir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Shruti Shrivastava, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate For State : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Aniket Verma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 15.04 .2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the termination period and period spent on duty during which the petitioner remained illegally terminated and the same be consider in counting Seniority in service of the petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly please to SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.04.16 17:40:09 +0530 2 quashed the order dated 12.02.2020 with the extend of Seniority of service period of during termination period, and the petitioner be allowed seniority by counting the termination period and consequential benefits including promotion. 10.3 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of petitioner in light of circulars of State Government dated 10.04.2008 and 16.08.2013 and grant the pay scale as admissible under the law to the petitioner from the date he became eligible. 10.4 That, any other relief/ order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Panchayat Karmi vide order dated 31.12.1995 and he was declared Secretary according to the provisions of Section 69 of C.G. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam vide order dated 30.10.1996. She would submit that the services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 03.04.2005 by the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. She would contend that against said order appeal preferred before the Collector was dismissed and against said order revision was preferred before the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division and same was allowed vide order dated 18.10.2019. She would submit that pursuant to order passed by the Commissioner, division Bilaspur, the petitioner was reinstated by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Janjgir Champa vide order dated 12.02.2020, but no decision has been taken with regard to salary and other benefits from date of termination of services till reinstatement. She would submit that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to make payment of arrears of salary and other benefits attached to the post of Secretary. 3 She would submit that according to the provisions of FR – 54-A)(1) of Fundamental Rules, as the order of termination has already been quashed by the competent authority, the petitioner would be entitled for all benefits attached to the post. In support thereof, she has placed reliance on the judgment passed in the matter of Abdul Rahman Ahmed vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. passed in WP No. 3899 of 2006. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents would oppose. They would submit that the services of the petitioner were terminated by the competent authority, and subsequently, revision preferred by the petitioner was allowed by the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division vide order dated 18.10.2019. It is also argued that the petitioner has already been reinstated in service vide order dated 12.02.2020. They would further submit that as the petitioner did not work during said period, therefore, he is not entitled to claim arrears of salary and other benefits attached to the post. They would submit that petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. Services of the petitioner were terminated by the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat and appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Collector was dismissed. The petitioner preferred revision before the Commissioner and same was allowed vide order dated 18.10.2019. Pursuant to said order appointing authority i.e. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat reinstated the services of the petitioner with stipulation that the petitioner would not be entitled for salary for said period. 6. Fundamental Rule 54-A)(1) applies in case of Civil servant/Government 4 servant. It states that when the dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement of a Government Servant is set aside by a Court of Law and such Government servant is reinstated without holding any further enquiry, such person has to be regulated in accordance with the provisions of sub-rules(2) or (3). 7. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is not a Government servant rather he is an employee of Panchayat and in Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam or Rules there is not such provision to extend benefit of F R 54- A)(1) of Fundamental Rules to the Panchayat employees; therefore, in my opinion, the judgment cited by Ms. Shruti Shrivastava would not come to rescue. Thus, writ petition is dismissed. 8. However, the petitioner is granted liberty to prefer an appeal against order passed by the Chief Executive Officer as such order is an appealable order according to the provisions of Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant