Desiya Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

CGHC010183712026

2026:CGHC:29541-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WA No. 585 of 2026

¶7

Desiya Ram S/o Late Shobha Ram Aged About 61 Years Presently Working On The Post Headmaster At Middle School Shyamnagar, BlockPratappur Distt.- Surajpur (C.G.)

¶8

... Appellant(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of School Education Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

2. Collector Surajpur Distt.- Surajpur (C.G.)

¶12

3. Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development Surajpur Distt.Surajpur (C.G.)

¶13

4. The District Education Officer Surajpur Distt.- Surajpur (C.G.)

¶14

5. Block Eduation Officer Premnagar Distt.- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.)

¶15

6. Headmaster Middle School Hariharpur Block- Premnagar Distt.Surajpur (C.G.)

¶16

...Respondent(s)

¶17

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶18

Digitally signed by BRIJMOHANMORLE BRIJMOHANMORLEDate: 2026.07.15 10:37:40 +0530

¶19

2

¶20

For Appellant : Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Praveen Das, Additional Advocate General.

¶21

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶22

Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

¶23

Judgment on Board

¶24

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶25

14.07.2026

¶26

1. Heard Mr. A.N. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Praveen Das, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State.

¶27

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the defects pointed out by the Registry have already been cured. In this regard, a covering memo dated 13.07.2026 has been filed. The same is taken on record.

¶28

3. The present intra-Court appeal has been preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner assailing the order dated 30.03.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 348 of 2022 ( Desiya Ram v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others ), whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant came to be dismissed.

¶29

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is working on the post of Headmaster. At the relevant time, he was posted at Government Middle School, Hariharpur, Block Premnagar, District Surajpur (now District Balrampur-Ramanujganj). While serving there, his services were transferred by order dated 30.07.2012 to Government Middle School,

¶30

3

¶31

Shyamnagar, Block Pratappur. He further submits that being aggrieved by the transfer order, the appellant approached this Court by filing WPS No. 3745 of 2012. By order dated 29.08.2012, learned Single Judge stayed the operation of the transfer order and permitted the appellant to continue at his existing place of posting till the decision on his representation. Pursuant thereto, the appellant submitted a representation, which came to be rejected on 24.11.2012. The appellant thereafter challenged the said rejection by filing WPS No.3212 of 2013, which was dismissed on 08.10.2013. The writ appeal preferred thereagainst, being W.A. No. 562 of 2013, was also dismissed by the Division Bench on 12.11.2013.

¶32

5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that only after dismissal of the writ appeal was the appellant relieved from his earlier place of posting on 21.11.2013, and he joined at the transferred place on 22.11.2013. Thus, till 21.11.2013, the appellant continued to discharge his duties at Government Middle School, Hariharpur under the protection granted by this Hon'ble Court and in accordance with the relieving order issued by the department. He further submitted that despite the appellant having continuously performed his duties from 16.08.2012 to 21.11.2013, the respondent authorities illegally withheld his salary for the said period. Several representations were submitted by the appellant requesting release of the salary, but no action was taken by the authorities.

¶33

6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant, therefore, filed a writ petition seeking payment of the withheld salary. However, the learned Single Judge, by the impugned order dated 30.03.2026, dismissed the writ petition without properly appreciating the

¶34

4

¶35

material facts and the documents placed on record. He also contended that the appellant was never relieved from his earlier place of posting until 21.11.2013 and, therefore, he lawfully continued to work at Government Middle School, Hariharpur. The attendance register, which was called for by the learned Single Judge, itself established that the appellant remained regularly present and discharged his duties during the relevant period. Once the appellant had actually worked and remained in service under the interim protection granted by this Hon'ble Court, he became legally entitled to receive salary for the period from 16.08.2012 to 21.11.2013. The failure of the learned Single Judge to consider these undisputed facts and the documentary evidence has resulted in grave prejudice to the appellant, warranting interference by this Court.

¶36

7. Per contra , learned State counsel submits that the learned Single Judge has rightly passed the impugned order and no interference is called for in the present writ appeal. It is contended that the appellant was transferred by order dated 30.07.2012 and was relieved by the competent authority on 16.08.2012. Despite the relieving order, the appellant did not join at the transferred place of posting and continued to remain at the earlier place of posting without any lawful authority. It is further submitted that though this Court, by interim order dated 29.08.2012, permitted the appellant to continue only if he had not already been relieved, the appellant had in fact been relieved on 16.08.2012. Therefore, the interim order did not enure to his benefit. It is also submitted that the appellant's representation against the transfer order was rejected and the challenge thereto by way of WPS No. 3212 of 2013 as well as W.A. No. 562 of 2013 was dismissed. Accordingly, the appellant cannot claim salary for the

¶37

5

¶38

period during which he remained at the earlier place of posting contrary to the relieving order. It is, therefore, prayed that the writ appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶39

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully perused the material available on record.

¶40

9. The undisputed facts reveal that the appellant was transferred from Government Middle School, Hariharpur to Government Middle School, Shyamnagar by order dated 30.07.2012. Though the appellant challenged the transfer order and obtained an interim order dated 29.08.2012 in WPS No. 3745 of 2012, the said interim order specifically permitted him to continue at the existing place of posting only if he had not already been relieved.

¶41

10. From the record, particularly Annexure R/1 in the writ petition, it is evident that the appellant had already been relieved by the Block Education Officer, Premnagar on 16.08.2012, much prior to the passing of the interim order dated 29.08.2012. Thus, the condition stipulated in the interim order was not fulfilled, and the appellant was not entitled to continue at the earlier place of posting. Despite the relieving order, the appellant chose not to join at the transferred place and continued to work at the previous school on his own.

¶42

11. It is also not in dispute that the appellant's representation against the transfer order was rejected. The said rejection was challenged before the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 3212 of 2013, which came to be dismissed. Thereafter, the writ appeal preferred against the said order was also dismissed by the Division Bench. Thus, the transfer order as well as

¶43

6

¶44

the consequential relieving order attained finality.

¶45

12. The contention of the appellant that he is entitled to salary merely because he remained present and discharged duties at the earlier place of posting cannot be accepted. Once the appellant had already been relieved from the earlier place of posting, his continuation there was without any legal sanction. Mere marking of attendance or performance of duties at a place where the appellant was no longer authorized to serve would not confer any enforceable right to claim salary for the said period.

¶46

13. The learned Single Judge has rightly appreciated the factual as well as legal aspects of the matter and has rightly held that the appellant, having failed to comply with the relieving order and having continued at the earlier place of posting without authority, is not entitled to claim salary for the period in question. We find no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the reasoning recorded by the learned Single Judge warranting interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction.

¶47

14. Consequently, finding no merit in the present writ appeal, the same is dismissed . No order as to costs.

¶48

Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶49

Brijmohan

Desiya Ram v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Desiya Ram v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khamman Lal Vs Santosh Kumar

Mahesh Jangde Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kishore Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Garvit Jain Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vidyasagar Ratre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Suresh Mishra Vs State of Chhattisgarh