Allowed¶32

Subhash Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC9 Feb 2025WPS/1551/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur; WPS No. 1551 of 2020; decided 10/02/2025 by Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J.; daily wage employee ('Peon') in ICDS office, Khadgawan, Koriya; oral termination of service September 2019; non-payment of daily wages October 2018 to September 2019; entitlement to back wages at Collector rate; unrebutted claim; respondents failed to produce payment records; Article 226 Constitution of India; Women and Child Development Department; petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pay wages to the petitioner for the period October 2018 to September 2019 at Collector rate; the reinstatement relief (10.1) sought in the petition is not addressed in the operative directions of the order. ¶32

Subhash Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

2025:CGHC:7210

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 1551 of 2020

¶6

Subhash Singh S/o Ramjanam Singh Aged About 41 Years R/o VillageKhadgawan, District-- Koriya, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner

¶7

versus

¶8

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Women And Child Development, D. K. S. Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

2 - The Collector Koriya, District- Koriya, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

3 - District Program Officer Women And Child Development Department, Koriya, Distrit- Koriya, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

4 - Program Officer Integrated Child Development Service Program Khadgawan, District- Koriya Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents

¶12

(Cause title, as taken from CIS)

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate For State/Respondents : Ms. Mandvi Bhardwaj, Panel Lawyer.

¶14

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

10/02/2025

¶17

With the consent of both the parties, heard the matter finally.

¶18

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been

¶19

preferred by petitioner seeking following reliefs:-

¶20

“ 10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be

¶21

pleased to direct the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner back in services.

¶22

10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to pay the petitioner’s salary for the period of October

¶23

¶24

2018 to September 2019 in the interest of justice.

¶25

10.3 Any other relief(s) which may deem fit by this Hon’ble Court also be granted in favour of the petitioner.”

¶26

Facts of the case, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of ‘Peon’ in the office of respondent No.4 as ‘daily wage employee’. He was paid salary/wages from November 2017 to September 2018. In the month of September 2019, his service was terminated orally by respondent No.4 but he has not paid salary (daily wages) from October 2018 to September 2019, hence, the petitioner has filed instant petition.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though termination of service of the petitioner was made orally in the month of September 2019 but he has not been paid monthly/daily wages from October 2018 to September 2019. He would further submit that for the aforesaid period, petitioner has worked in the office of respondent No.4, which has not been denied by respondents, therefore, respondents may be directed for payment of wages to the petitioner from October 2018 to September 2019 on the basis of Collector rate.

¶28

Respondents have filed their reply. Learned counsel appearing for State/respondents would submit that petitioner was engaged in the office of respondent No.4 as ‘Peon’ and his engagement was purely as ‘daily wage employee’. Since he was not appointed by any written order, therefore, his service was terminated orally. Referring to its reply, learned State counsel would further submit that after the discontinuation of service of the petitioner, if he has worked in the office of respondent No.4, then the answering respondents would not be responsible for the wages to be paid for the said work done by petitioner after his discontinuation, therefore, the instant petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶29

¶30

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶31

Having considered the contentions putforth by either party, admittedly, petitioner was engaged in the office of respondent No.4 as ‘daily wage employee’ and after taking his service for few years, his engagement has been discontinued since September 2019. Discontinuation of service of the petitioner since September 2019 has not been controverted by respondents, but petitioner has not claimed any wages after discontinuation of his service, rather, he has claimed wages from October 2018 to September 2019, to which, he has served in the office of Respondent No.4. Petitioner has filed wages list lastly granted to him for the month of August-September, 2018. Respondents have not filed any document to demonstrate the fact that petitioner has been paid wages for the month of October 2018 to September 2019, therefore, contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is found to be unrebutted that he has worked for the period from October 2018 to September 2019 in the office of respondent No.4, but he has not been paid wages for aforesaid period, hence, petition filed by petitioner is liable to be allowed.

¶32

Consequently, the instant petition is allowed . Respondents are directed to pay wages to the petitioner for the period from October 2018 to September 2019 on the rate, in which, he was engaged in the office of respondent No.4 i.e. Collector rate.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

Rukhsar

¶37

RUKHSARBANO Digitallysigned byRUKHSARBANODate:2025.02.1017:05:02+0530

Subhash Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shrikant Motghare Vs Smt. Reeta Shrikant Motghare

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Seema Manhare

Mahendra Alias Raju Rajput Vs Kumari Nidhi

Smt. Anita Kashyap Vs Pankaj Kashyap

Smt. Neha Ratre Vs Dhaneshwar Bhaskar

Smt. Deepti Singh Vs Shri Ankit Singh