Amar Singh Gaikwad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.02.05 16:48:50 +0530

1

2026:CGHC:6445

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 1078 of 2026

¶7

Amar Singh Gaikwad S/o Shri Najroo Gaikwad Aged About 78 Years Presently Posted As Panchayat Secretary Gram Panchayat, Baharbord, Janpad Panchayat- Nawagarh, District- Bemetara (C.G.)

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, DistrictRaipur (C.G.)

¶11

2. Director Directorate Of Panchayat And Social Services, Indravati Bhawan Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶12

3. Collector Bemetara DistrictBemetara (C.G.)

¶13

4. Chief Executive Officer District- Panchayat Bemetara DistrictBemetara (C.G.)

¶14

5. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Nawagarh DistrictBemetara (C.G.)

¶15

6. Deputy Director Panchayat And Social Welfare, Bemetara DistrictBemetara (C.G.)

¶16

... Respondent(s)

¶17

For Petitioner :	Mr. Ravi Kumar Banjare, Advocate
For State :	Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, G.A.

¶18

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶19

Judgment On Board

¶20

5.2.2026

¶21

1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following relief(s):-

¶22

10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased

¶23

2

¶24

to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the petitioner's due honorarium for the period from January 2001 to June 2007, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective due dates till actual payment, within a time-bound period.

¶25

10.2 Grant any other relief(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

¶26

10.3 Award costs of the petition in favor of the petitioner.

¶27

2) Facts of the present case are that petitioner was initially appointed as Panchyat Karmi (now Panchayat Secretary) vide order dated 9.12.1995. He was removed from service on 6.2.2001. Petitioner preferred W.P. No. 647 of 2001 assailing the said removal order and interim order was issued in his favor on 4.7.2001. By virtue of interim order, petitioner joined on the said post in June, 2007. Subsequently, writ petition was disposed vide order dated 15.3.2013 directing respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner forthwith in services without back wages. In this petition, petitioner has claimed arrears of back wages for the period between January, 2001 to June, 2007.

¶28

3) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner was removed from service without conducting inquiry and affording opportunity of hearing, therefore removal order was set aside by this Court in W.P. No. 647 of 2001. He further submits that order of removal was bad in law, therefore petitioner is entitled for back wages.

¶29

4) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that in the order dated 15.3.2013 it has been clearly held that petitioner shall not be entitled for back wages. He further submits that petitioner failed to

¶30

3

¶31

challenge the said order, thus it attained finality, therefore this petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶32

5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost circumspection.

¶33

6) Admittedly, petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Karmi on 9.12.1995. He was removed from service in January, 2001 and said order was set aside by this Court in W.P. No. 647 of 2001 vide order dated 15.3.2013. Para-6 of the said order reads as under :-

¶34

6. In view of foregoing, the petition deserves to be and is allowed. The impugned order dated 06.02.2001 Is quashed. The respondent authorities are directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith in service, without back wages.

¶35

7) Bare reading of the operative part of order would make it clear that a direction was issued for re-instatement of petitioner on the said post without back wages. Petitioner failed to challenge the said order before higher forum, thus it attained finality. Therefore after lapse of 13 years, petitioner cannot ben permitted to claim back wages by way of this petition.

¶36

8) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, no case is made for interference. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s).

¶37

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

¶38

A j i n k y a

Amar Singh Gaikwad v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amar Singh Gaikwad v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mangilal, Vs Kapil and Others

Iffco- Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Smt. Yaad Bai

Ramdhari (Now Dead) through LRs Vs Dayavati Devi (Now Dead) through Lrs

Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited Vs Union of India

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Vs Smt. Geeta Bai Kashyap

Laxmibai Sahu Vs Goutam Kumar Shrivas