Dismissed¶¶29

Dhaniyaram Banjare v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC15 Jul 2026WPS/5369/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur — WPS No. 5369 of 2026, Dhaniyaram Banjare v. State of Chhattisgarh & others (16/07/2026, Bibhu Datta Guru, J.): temporary sweeper absent in judicial custody, acquitted 13.05.2026; acquittal alone confers no enforceable right to reinstatement for a temporary employee; mandamus refused where no terminating order challenged and no refusing decision on record; entitlement left to competent authority; writ petition dismissed. No statutes or precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

Acquittal in a criminal case, by itself, does not confer an enforceable right to claim reinstatement or continuation in service, particularly where the employee was engaged on a temporary basis. ¶¶26

Dhaniyaram Banjare Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

1 / 3

CGHC010270922026

2026:CGHC:30161

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 5369 of 2026

¶7

Dhaniyaram Banjare S/o Late Shyamlal Banjare Aged About 44 Years R/o VillageBalpur, Police Station- Sarsiwa, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.)

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

2. District Education Officer Sarangarh, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.)

¶12

3. Block Education Officer Bilaigarh, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.)

¶13

4. Head Master Govt. Primary School, Samtanagar, Tihlipali, Block- Bilaigarh, District- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.)

¶14

Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTISHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.07.17 11:29:55 +0530

¶15

... Respondent(s)

¶16

(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)

¶17

For Petitioner	: Ms. Divya Sahu , Advocate
For Respondents/ State	: Ms. Anuja Sharma, Dy. G.A.

¶18

(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU)

¶19

Order on Board

¶20

16/07/2026

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as a temporary Sweeper on 23.12.2013 and remained absent from duty only on account of his judicial custody after being implicated in a criminal case. He submits that the petitioner has been acquitted of all the charges by judgment dated 13.05.2026, yet the respondents have not permitted him to

¶22

2 / 3

¶23

resume his duties nor passed any order in that regard. It is contended that the continued denial of employment is arbitrary and he prays that the respondents be directed to allow the petitioner to rejoin his duties with all consequential benefits.

¶24

Learned State counsel opposes the writ petition and submits that the petitioner was engaged only on a temporary basis and has no vested or indefeasible right to claim reinstatement merely on the basis of his acquittal in the criminal case. He submits that acquittal by itself does not automatically entitle the petitioner to resume service and the competent authority is required to consider his case in accordance with the applicable rules, terms of engagement and administrative requirements. It is further submitted that no order terminating the services of the petitioner is under challenge in the present petition and, therefore, the relief sought is not maintainable. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶25

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents appended thereto.

¶26

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the petitioner has sought a direction to permit him to resume his duties solely on the basis of the judgment of acquittal dated 13.05.2026. However, acquittal in a criminal case, by itself, does not confer an enforceable right to claim reinstatement or continuation in service, particularly when the petitioner was engaged on a temporary basis.

¶27

3 / 3

¶28

The question as to whether the petitioner is entitled to resume his duties is required to be considered by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable rules, terms and conditions of engagement and the prevailing administrative requirements. In the present case, no order terminating the services of the petitioner has been challenged nor has any decision of the competent authority declining his claim been placed on record. In absence thereof, no writ of mandamus can be issued directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to rejoin his duties.

¶29

Accordingly, finding no merit in the writ petition, the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed .

¶30

Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE

¶31

Jyoti

Dhaniyaram Banjare v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhaniyaram Banjare 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

Ramesh Kumar Umre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramesh Chanda Bahesh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dinesh Kumar Chandrakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajendra Sharma Vs Mr. Himanshu Gupta, Director General

Smt. Priyanka Gaikwad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Manishankar Sahu Vs R. Sangeeta