Disposed¶31

Jai Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC5 Jul 2026WPS/8002/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court Bilaspur; WPS No. 8002 of 2022; Jai Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh; Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.; salary deduction; unauthorized absence 2021-22; Headmaster Government Middle School Lamer; basic pay reduction Rs. 82,400/- to Rs. 55,819/-; no show-cause notice; Annexure P/4; representations Annexure P/7 and P/9; direction to decide representations within 120 days; District Education Officer Bilaspur; Block Education Officer Takhatpur; writ petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to decide the petitioner's pending representations within 120 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. ¶31

Jai Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

CGHC010362382022

¶3

Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE

¶4

2026:CGHC:27782

¶5

NAFR

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

WPS No. 8002 of 2022

¶8

Jai Singh S/o Late Sukhiram Singh, Aged About 47 Years Currently Working As Headmaster, Government Middle School, Lamer, Block Takhatpur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, R/o New Sarkanda Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2 - The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

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

¶13

4 - Block Education Officer, Takhatpur, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s)

¶14

... Respondent(s)

¶15

For Petitioner : Ms. Dyna Bajrang, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate

¶16

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, Panel Lawyer

¶17

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶18

Order on Board

¶19

06/07/2026

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

“10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writ, direction/directions, order/orders to refund the arbitrary deductions made towards the Salary of the Petitioner and to further stop any unlawful deductions in salary.

¶23

10.2. That this court may kindly issue the directions to the respondent authorities to decide the representations of the petitioner (Annexure P/7 and Annexure P/9).

¶24

10.3. That this court may kindly issue the directions to the respondent authorities to pay the costs for the hardships caused to the petitioner.

¶25

10.4. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. ”

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that at relevant time, the petitioner was working on the post of Headmaster at Government Middle School, Lamer, Block Takhatpur, District Bilaspur. He would further submit that the petitioner was drawing a gross monthly salary of 1,07,737/- with a basic pay of 82,400/- till September 2022, but₹ ₹ the authority concerned has reduced his basic pay from October 2022 onwards to 55,819/- and his gross salary became 76,504/-. He would₹ ₹ contend that without issuance of any show-cause notice his salary was reduced. He would further contend that when petitioner raised objection, the respondent authorities justified the deduction on the ground that the petitioner remained unauthorizedly absent during year 2021-2022. He would also contend that petitioner has made representations but, no heed has been paid; thus, she would pray that the respondent authorities may be directed to decide his pending representation.

¶27

¶28

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that the petitioner remained unauthorizedly absent in the year 2021-22, therefore, after inquiry, a decision was taken to deduct the salary of the petitioner for the said period. He would submit that the petitioner has not challenged the order reflected in Annexure P/4, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶29

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

¶30

Taking into consideration the limited prayer made by counsel for the petitioner, at this juncture, this writ petition is hereby disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities i.e. respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to decide the pending representations of the petitioner within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶31

With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), this writ petition is hereby disposed of .

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

Nadim

Jai Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Singh 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

Lingraj Steel and Power Pvt. Ltd., 319, Lingraj Steel, Samta Colony, Raipur (C G), Vs Assistant Commissioner S G S T

Smt. Vrinda Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pradeep Chouhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vikas Kumar Rathiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nitesh Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vinita Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh