Somesh Pathak Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

Page 1 of 4

¶2

(WPS No.940/2020)

¶3

2026:CGHC:8317

¶4

Digitally signed by SISTA SISTA SOMAYAJULU SOMAYAJULU Date: 2026.02.17 11:29:18 +0530

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

NAFR

¶7

WPS No. 940 of 2020

¶8

Somesh Pathak, S/o Shri Om Prakash Pathak, aged about 36 years, Presently working as Lecturer (Panchayat) at Government Higher Secondary School, Mohgaon, Block Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

versus

¶11

State of Chhattisgarh. Through the Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development , Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

Commissioner-cum-Director, Directorate of Panchayat, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

District Education Officer, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

Block Education Officer, Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate. For Respondents No.1, 2, 4 & 5 : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Panel Lawyer.

¶16

Single Bench:Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

Order on Board

16/02/2026

Page 2 of 4

(WPS No.940/2020)

The petitioner has called in question legality, validity and correctness of the order dated 26-12-2019 (Annexure P-1), by which his representation pursuant to the order dated 23-7-2019 passed by this Court in WPS No.5348/2019, has been rejected finding no merit.

¶22

The petitioner proceeded on medical leave on 19-9-2015 for 589 days for which he submitted certificate to the Zila Panchayat, Kabridham, for grant of medical leave which was not granted by order dated 11-22019 leading to filing of WPS No.5348/2019 in which this Court by its order dated 23-7-2019 held as under: -

¶23

“6. The only effect of the order of “No work no pay” is that the petitioner would not be entitled for the monetary benefits attached to the post during the said period of absence and except for the said benefit, for all other practical purposes the period has to be treated as continuous service.

¶24

It is a settled position of law that unless there is a specific order of dies non being passed for a specific period, for all practical purposes the entire period has to be treated as continuous. “No work no pay” can never be treated as dies non and “No work no pay” also cannot be treated as break in service.

¶25

Under the circumstances, the non-consideration of the petitioner for absorption inspite of having put in more than 8 years of service is bad in law. The respondents are directed to take a fresh decision on the claim of the petitioner for absorption in the Education Department in accordance with the circular of the State Government dated 30.06.2018 at the earliest preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.”

¶26

As such, it is clearly held that “no work no pay” can never be treated as dies non and “no work no pay” also cannot be treated as break in service. It is also clearly held that non-consideration of the petitioner for absorption in spite of having put in more than 8 years of service is

¶27

Page 3 of 4

¶28

(WPS No.940/2020)

¶29

bad in law and directed the respondents to take a fresh decision on absorption of the petitioner.

¶30

Now, decision has taken in which again order dated 11-2-2019 has been relied upon which was the subject-matter of the earlier writ petition and which has already been clarified by this Court. However, by the impugned order, the representation submitted by the petitioner has been rejected which has been called in question in this writ petition.

¶31

Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that the Zila Panchayat, Kabirdham is absolutely unjustified in rejecting the representation of the petitioner, as in the earlier order passed by this Court, it has been clearly held that “no work no pay” can never be treated as dies non and “no work no pay” also cannot be treated as break in service.

¶32

On the other hand, Mr. Anmol Sharma, learned State counsel, would oppose the writ petition and support the impugned order.

¶33

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also gone through the material available on record.

¶34

Since the petitioner’s absence from 19-9-2015 to 26-4-2017 has never been declared as dies non, as there is no specific order for dies non having been passed for specific period, therefore, for all practical purposes, the entire period has to be treated as continuous service. As held by this Court in the earlier order, the issue of non-

¶35

Page 4 of 4

¶36

(WPS No.940/2020)

¶37

consideration of the petitioner’s claim for absorption in spite of having put in 8 years of service is bad in law and which has wrongly been rejected by the impugned order, as the period from 19-9-2015 to 26-4-2017 will have to be included in service as the continuous service period. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 26-12-2019 (Annexure P-1) is set aside and the necessary formal order observing the petitioner’s service with effect from 1-7-2019 including the period from 19-9-2015 to 26-4-2017 as service period will be passed by the Zila Panchayat within a period of one month from today.

¶38

The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. No order as to cost(s).

¶39

Sd/(Sanjay K. Agrawal) JUDGE

¶40

Soma

Somesh Pathak v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Somesh Pathak 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

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Ritu Nishad Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Johan Lal Jain Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramesh Nag Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Janendra Kumar Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Somen Kumar Pradhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anand Masih Vs State of Chhattisgarh