-1- 2026:CGHC:17076 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3221 of 2026 1 - Ghanshyam Jain S/o Shri Sukal Jain Aged About 47 Years Secretary Gram Panchayat Basanwali, Janpad Panchayat Narharpur, Distt. North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayat, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector Distt. North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Deputy Director Panchayat North Distt. Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Kanker, Distt. North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Narharpur, Distt. North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. … Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Avinash Singh, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 15 /04/2026 Heard. 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s): 10.1. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction, commanding the Respondent No. 4 to consider and decide the Petitioner's pending representations dated 01.03.2024 and 14.07.2025 (Annexure P-3 and P-5) by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a strictly stipulated period of 30 days. -2- 10.2. Issue a direction to the Respondents to calculate and release the full arrears of salary (back wages) for the entire period of suspension (from 09.09.2011) and the subsequent period of dismissal (till reinstatement), after adjusting the subsistence allowance already paid. 10.3. Issue a direction to the Respondents to treat the entire period from 09.09.2011 to the date of actual reinstatement as active service/duty period for all intents and purposes, specifically taking into account that the Petitioner was on active duty/attachment during the pendency of the previous litigation. Consequently, the Respondents must be directed to grant all annual increments that fell due during the said period, fix the Petitioner's pay scale at par with other Panchayat Secretaries appointed in November 1995 (i.e., in the pay scale of 11,380-20,500), and correct ₹ the service record to ensure the Petitioner's seniority remains protected. 10.4. Quash/Set aside that specific part of the Order dated 27.02.2024 issued by Respondent No. 4 which arbitrarily concludes that the "50% subsistence allowance payable during the suspension period is adequate," being contrary to the principles of natural justice and the subsequent final judgment of this Hon'ble Court. 10.5. Direct the Respondents to pay interest @ 18% per annum on the total amount of arrears and withheld salary from the date it became due until the date of actual payment, as the delay is solely attributable to the inaction of the Respondents. 10.6. Grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, including the cost of the petition, in the interest of justice.. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as a Panchayat Secretary and was terminated from service vide order dated 23.02.2013. Being aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the said order before this Court in WPS No. 1474/2013, which was initially filed on 02.07.2013 and ultimately came to be allowed vide order dated 11.07.2024. 3. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner has been reinstated in service. However, the salary for the period of suspension has not been paid to the petitioner. In this regard, the petitioner submitted a -3- representation before respondent No. 4, which is still pending consideration. He further submits that the petitioner shall file a comprehensive fresh representation before the concerned authority, and a direction may be issued to consider and decide the same along with the pending representation. 4. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3 submits that the grievance of the petitioner is against respondent No. 4, for whom he is not appearing. 5. Considering that the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is limited to seeking a direction for consideration of the representation, the present writ petition is disposed of without issuing notice to the other respondents. 6. On due consideration, and in view of the submission that the petitioner has already submitted a representation, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition by permitting the petitioner to submit a comprehensive representation before respondent No. 4 within a period of two weeks. If such representation is submitted, the concerned authority shall consider and decide the same, in accordance with law, along with the pending representation, expeditiously, preferably within a further period of two months from the date of receipt of such representation. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands finally disposed of. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Jyoti