Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8458 (CHH)

HEMENDRA KUMAR YADU v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPS/961/2023 · 2026-01-19

Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2026:CGHC:3440 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 961 of 2023 Hemendra Kumar Yadu S/o Pardeshi Ram Yadu, Aged About 42 Years Working As Lecturer (LB) And Posted At Govt. Higher Secondary School, Sonasilli, Block Pithora, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner. versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Mantralaya New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director, Directorate Of Chhattisgarh Public Instruction Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - District Education Officer, Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For State/Respondent : Ms. Vartika Srivastava, PL. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 20/01/2026 AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA 2 1. By way of this Writ Petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- (i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash order dated 07.01.2022 (Annexure P-1) to the extent it deprived the petitioner from salary and monetary benefit of suspension period and further may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant salary, allowances and other benefits of the suspension period with all consequential benefit with 18% interest, in the interest of justice. (ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted. 2. Necessary facts of the case are that petitioner was working as a Lecturer (L.B.) in Government Higher Secondary School Sonasilli, Block Pithora, District Mahasamund C.G. The petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 21.09.2020 (Annexure P/2) as criminal case was lodged against the petitioner under Sections 354, 294, 323 IPC and under section 8 of POCSO Act. Subsequently, vide judgment dated 29th October, 2021 passed in Special Criminal Case No.H-32/2020, Special Court (POCSO Act, 2012), Mahasamund C.G. acquitted the petitioner from the charges under Sections 354B, 323, 294 IPC and under Section 9(n)/10 of POCSO Act, 2012 (Annexure P/3). Thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated in the services at Govt. Higher Secondary School Sonasilli Block Pithora, District Mahasamund. 3 However, it was ordered that the petitioner will not get salary allowance for the period of suspension except the suspension allowance. Hence this Petition. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was arrested for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 294 and 323 of the IPC and under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and due to his arrest and incarceration in jail, he was suspended by the authorities concerned. Subsequently, during the course of criminal trial, the petitioner was acquitted of the charges and as such, the petitioner was reinstated in the services. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner should be given the salary of the period during which he was suspended. 4. Learned State counsel would oppose the prayer made by counsel for the petitioner stating that petitioner due to his own conduct was arrested and the petitioner did not work during the entire course of criminal trial and as such, he cannot be granted benefit of his previous salary for the period of his suspension. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. From perusal of record, it appears that due to criminal case against the petitioner, he was arrested and was in jail. Thereafter, the petitioner was acquitted from the charges and was released from the jail and as such, the period on which the petitioner was in jail cannot be held to be the period which would entitle the petitioner for grant of back wages. Moreover, the petitioner did not 4 work due to his own conduct and not because of the fault of the respondent authorities and since, the petitioner has not worked during the said period, no relief can be granted to him. 7. For the above discussion, the Writ Petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash