Allowed¶38

Shyamlal Nayak v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC5 Jan 2025WPS/834/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Counting of past/earlier service; break in service and reappointment; Clause-II of appointment order dated 30.12.1997; pensionary benefits; Lower Division Teacher; State Administrative Tribunal directions to reconsider; quashing of rejection order dated 12.07.2016 (Annexure P/1); School Education Department, Government of Chhattisgarh; circular dated 05.07.2007 referred only in relief clause, not adjudicated; WPS No. 834 of 2018; 2025:CGHC:704; NAFR.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 12.07.2016 (Annexure P/1) quashed; respondent authorities directed to consider the petitioners' claims for pensionary benefits counting their earlier services in accordance with the appointment order dated 30.12.1997, and to complete the entire exercise within six months. ¶38

Shyamlal Nayak Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners' earlier service (prior to reappointment by order dated 30.12.1997) must be counted for calculation of pensionary benefits, having regard to Clause-II of the appointment order dated 30.12.1997. +1 more

¶33

Court's answer

Clause-II of the appointment order dated 30.12.1997 records that the petitioners' earlier services were considered, subject to the stipulation that no salary was payable for that period.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

The earlier services rendered by the petitioners may be counted for all purposes except salary.

¶38

Key takeaways

Respondent No. 1 rejected the petitioners' representations without considering Clause-II of the appointment order dated 30.12.1997.ratio¶38
Annexure P/1 (order dated 12.07.2016) is not sustainable and stands quashed.ratio¶38
The respondent authorities are directed to consider the petitioners' claims regarding pensionary benefits by counting their earlier services, in accordance with the appointment order dated 30.12.1997.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur — WPS No. 834 of 2018, decided 06.01.2025 (Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.) [NAFR]: Five retired Lower Division Teachers, initially appointed by order dated 03.01.1984 and whose services were discontinued, were reappointed by order dated 30.12.1997 containing Clause-II recording that their earlier services stood considered, though salary was not payable for the intervening period. When respondent No. 1 rejected, by order dated 12.07.2016 (Annexure P/1), their representations for counting earlier service towards pensionary benefits — without adverting to Clause-II — the Court held that the earlier services may be counted for all purposes except salary, quashed Annexure P/1, and directed the respondents to reconsider the pensionary claims in accordance with the appointment order dated 30.12.1997, completing the exercise within six months.

¶1

-1-

¶2

Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE

¶3

2025:CGHC:704

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 834 of 2018

¶7

1 - Shyamlal Nayak S/o Late Loknath Nayak, Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Madhopali, Post And Ps Saraipali, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

2 - Laxmanlal Patel S/o Late Sadanand Patel Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Madhopali Post And Ps Saraipali District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

3 - Narsingh Patel S/o Late Mohan Lal Patel Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Madhopali Post And Ps Saraipali District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

4 - Bodhram Patel S/o Late Devarchan Patel Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Madhopali Post And Ps Saraipali District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

5 - Chunnilal Patel S/o Late Jairam Patel Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Madhopali Post And Ps Saraipali District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

... Petitioner(s)

¶13

versus

¶14

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

2 - Under Secretary Department of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶16

3 - Director Public Instruction District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶17

-2-

¶18

4 - District Education officer, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.

¶19

... Respondent(s)

¶20

For Petitioners : Ms. Diksha Gouraha, Advocate, holding the brief of

¶21

Mr. Mateen Siddique, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr.Vinay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General

¶22

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶23

Order on Board

¶24

06.01.2025

¶25

The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

¶26

“10.1. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order 12.07.20016 issued by the Under Secretary, School Education Department, State of C.G. (Annexure P/ 1).

¶27

10.2. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent state to count the services of the petitioner from initial of appointment i.e. in the year 1983, for the purpose of seniority as per the circular dated 05.07.2007, thereby granting benefits from initial date of appointment.

¶28

10.3. This, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other reliefs) / order(s)/ writ(s) in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner. ”

¶29

1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were

¶30

initially appointed as Lower Division Teachers vide order dated 03.01.1984. Later

¶31

on, their services were discontinued. She argues that multiple original applications were filed before the learned State Administrative Tribunal, thereafter; directions were issued to the respondent authorities to reconsider the names of the petitioners for appointment. She further submits that a committee

¶32

-3-

¶33

was constituted, and the petitioners were subsequently appointed to the post of Lower Division Teacher by the Deputy Director, Public Instruction vide order dated 30.12.1997. She contends that the conditions endorsed in the appointment order clearly state that the services of the petitioners as Lower Division Teachers were to be considered as continued from the date of their initial appointment with the stipulation that they would not get the salary for that period. She submits that the petitioners are retired teachers and have made representations before the respondent authorities to count their earlier service for the calculation of pensionary benefits, but their representation was rejected by respondent No. 1 vide order dated 12.07.2016. She argues that the order (Annexure P/1) is illegal as it fails to take into account condition No. 2 of the appointment order dated 30.12.1997.

¶34

On the other hand, Mr. Vinay Pandey, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State submits that there was a break in the services of the petitioners as they were removed from the post of Lower Division Teacher and later reappointed as fresh teachers. Therefore, they have no right to claim continuity of service or the inclusion of their earlier service for pensionary benefits. He states that several original applications were earlier filed before the learned Administrative Tribunal against the order of discontinuation from services, and directions were issued to the respondent authorities to reconsider the claims of the petitioners.

¶35

1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed

¶36

-4-

¶37

on record.

¶38

1. The appointment order dated 30.12.1997, particularly Clause-II, reveals that earlier services of the petitioners were considered, and it was stipulated that they would not be entitled to receive the salary for that period. This indicates that the earlier services rendered by the petitioners may be counted for all purposes except salary. Respondent No. 1, however, rejected the representations made by the petitioners without considering Clause-II of the appointment order dated 30.12.1997. Consequently, Annexure P/1 is not sustainable and is hereby quashed .

¶39

1. The respondent authorities are directed to consider the claims of the petitioners regarding pensionary benefits counting their earlier services, in accordance with the appointment order dated 30.12.1997.

¶40

1. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of six months.

¶41

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶42

Nadim

Shyamlal Nayak v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyamlal Nayak 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harnarayan Agrawal Vs Dinesh Kumar Biyar

Branch Manager, Vs Chhaya Samund

Smt. Vandana Kocher Vs Romlal Nishad

Chandrabhan Singh (Died and Deleted) Through LRs. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Ramesh Kumar Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Nathel Dhiwar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh