Smt. Kunti Jaiswal, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.06.16 19:14:14 +0530

¶3

2026:CGHC:24009

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 4346 of 2022

¶7

*** -** Smt. Kunti Jaiswal, W/o Shri Shyam Sundar Jaiswal, Aged About 52 Years Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Middle School, Bata, Block Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Social Welfare Department, Mantrtalaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2 - Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3 - District Education Officer, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶13

4 - Block Education Officer, Block Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶14

... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. C.J.K. Rao, Advocate For Respondents : Ms. Saumya Sharma, Panel Lawyer

¶15

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶16

16/06/2026

¶17

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

¶18

“ 10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to provide the benefit of time pay scale, revised pay scale and arrears of the salary.

¶19

10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the representation of the petitioner.

¶20

10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate.”

¶21

2

¶22

Mr. C.J.K. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Siksha Karmi Grade-II vide order dated 04.08.2008. He would contend that as the petitioner remained absent from services on account of health reasons from 01.09.2013 to 05.03.2014, therefore, a show cause notice was issued and on account of such authorized absence, she was removed from services vide order dated 22.05.2015 by Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Korba. Mr. Rao would submit that an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, which was allowed vide order dated 21.06.2018 and order dated 22.05.2015 was set aside. It is argued that the petitioner has not been paid arrears of salary, time pay scale and revised pay scale till date, though the order of removal from services has already been set aside by the Commissioner. He would submit that the petitioner may be permitted to make a representation before respondent No. 3 and a direction may be issued to said authority to decide the same within stipulated time in objective manner.

¶23

On the other hand, Ms. Saumya Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents would oppose. Ms. Sharma would submit that the petitioner should have claimed all these benefits before the Commissioner, the authority which allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. It is also argued that the claim of the petitioner is hit by principles of delay and laches as the petitioner has claimed arrears of salary, time pay scale and revised pay scale of year 2013-14 and onwards. She would submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶24

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

¶25

3

¶26

With regard to principle of delay and laches, it does not apply where a government servant claims arrears of salary, pensionary benefits and other benefits attached to the post, therefore, the contention made by Ms. Sharma cannot be accepted. Though the services of the petitioner were terminated, but the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division allowed the appeal vide order dated 21.06.2018 and quashed the order of removal dated 22.05.2015. It appears that the petitioner has not been paid arrears of salary, time pay scale and revised pay scale till date, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to make a detailed representation before respondent No. 3 and in turn, the said authority is directed to decide it expeditiously in objective manner preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶27

With the aforesaid observation(s) / direction(s), the writ petition is disposed of .

¶28

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶29

vatti

Smt. Kunti Jaiswal, v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kunti Jaiswal, 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

Kuldeep Chandrakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

David Prasad Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vipin Sinha Vs Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit

Manish Meshram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ram Avtar Dhruv Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vijay Sharma Vs the State of Chhattisgarh