1 - Pratap Sahu S/o.Late Lakhan Lal Sahu, Aged About 53 Years Presently Working v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Agriculture Development And Farmer
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2025:CGHC:35588 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4023 of 2023 1 - Pratap Sahu S/o.Late Lakhan Lal Sahu, Aged About 53 Years Presently Working As Sub Inspector At Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Gandai, Police Station Gandai, District Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan Gandai Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Agriculture Development And Farmer Welfare And Bio-Technology, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raiupur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Agriculture Marketing (Mandi) Board, Beej Bhawan, G.E. Road, Telibandh, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Joint Director, Chhattisgarh State Agriculture Marketing (Mandi) Board, Divisional Officer, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Gandai, District : Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan-Gandai, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) 2 For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. S.R.J. Jaiswal, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No. 2 to : Mr. Animesh Pathak, Advocate on 4 behalf of Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad 23/07/2025 Order on Board 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records in relates to the case of the petitioner from the possession of respondents for its kind perusal 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 02.02 2023 issued by the respondent no 2 le Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Agriculture Marketing (Mandi) Board, Beej Bhawan, G.E. Road, Telibandh, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) and further be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the full salary/wages to the petitioner with interest @ 18% per annum during the period of suspension by holding the period of suspension as fully unreasonable. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly further be 3 pleased to direct the respondents to give all the consequential benefits to the petitioner with annual increments which he is entitled to get if the suspension was not imposed against him with interest @ 18% per annum. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief/relief's in favour of the petitioners, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner is working currently serving as a Sub-Inspector at the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Gandai, Police Station Gandai, District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan- Gandai (C.G.), the petitioner was placed under suspension effective from 26.11.2021 by respondent No. 2, due to allegations of abetment to suicide related to one Somnath Janghel. Subsequently, criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, and charges were framed under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. However, in CRR No. 881/2022, the Hon'ble High Court quashed the charges on 16.11.2022, and the trial court, on 24.11.2022, closed the criminal proceedings, discharging the petitioner from all charges. Following this, the petitioner approached the department to drop the departmental 4 proceedings and revoke the suspension, requesting full salary and annual increments for the suspension period. On 09.12.2022, respondent No. 2 has issued an order to close the departmental proceedings and revoke the suspension. Despite this, the petitioner’s requests for full salary and increments were repeatedly denied. Respondent No. 2 vide its order dated 02.02.2023, rejected the petitioner’s request for full wages, stating the suspension period would be treated as 'spent on duty'. This decision is arbitrary, unlawful, and against established norms, especially as the petitioner has been exonerated and the suspension was found to be unreasonable. Under Rule 50(B) of the Fundamental Rules, the petitioner is entitled to get full wages for the period of suspension, and numerous judicial precedents support this claim. Thus, the order issued by respondent No. 2 is illegal and must be set aside, entitling the petitioner to full salary and annual increments for the suspension period. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was placed under suspension on 26.11.2021, following allegations of abetment of suicide levelled against him in connection with the tragic death of one Late Shri Somnath Janghel. As a result of these allegations, criminal charges were framed against the petitioner. However, subsequent to the framing of charges, the petitioner approached this Hon'ble Court by way of a revision 5 petition, challenging the charges. This Court, vide its order dated 16.11.2022 in Criminal Revision No. 881/2022, was pleased to discharge the petitioner from the charges under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. He further submits that following his suspension, the petitioner was granted suspension allowance as per the order dated 26.11.2021. However, despite the discharge order passed by this Court on 16.11.2022, the petitioner has not been provided with the arrears of suspension allowance or the back wages that are due to him. This non-payment has caused undue financial hardship to the petitioner, who is otherwise entitled to receive his full salary and benefits from the period of his suspension till the date of his discharge. He further submits that, in light of the discharge order passed by this Court on 16.11.2022, the petitioner is entitled, as a matter of right, to receive his full salary and all other employment benefits for the period of suspension. The petitioner has not been reinstated or provided his rightful dues, including arrears of suspension allowance and back wages, which he continues to be deprived of despite the clear order of discharge. In support of the petitioner’s contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the order dated 11.06.2025, passed by this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition (S) No. 6368/2017, in the matter of Jatashankar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., where the Hon'ble Court upheld the 6 entitlement of an employee to receive back wages and suspension allowance after a discharge order. The principles laid down in that case squarely apply to the present matter, and therefore, the petitioner respectfully submits that he is entitled to receive all benefits accruing to him, including back wages and arrears of suspension allowance, as per the law. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to immediately release the arrears of suspension allowance, back wages and any other benefits due to the petitioner from the date of his suspension until his discharge, in compliance with the discharge order dated 16.11.2022. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing respondents No. 2 to 4 has vehemently opposed the claim of the petitioner for back wages. It is submitted that the petitioner, admittedly, did not render any actual service during the relevant period for which the back wages are now being sought. In such circumstances, the principle of "no work, no pay" squarely applies, and therefore, the petitioner cannot be entitled to any monetary benefit for the said period. He further submits that the petitioner has neither pleaded nor established that he was prevented from discharging his duties due to any fault attributable to the respondents. It is submitted that unless and until it is demonstrated that the 7 petitioner was willing and ready to work and was unlawfully denied such opportunity by the respondents, no claim for back wages can be entertained in law. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance upon a judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court in WPS No. 1473/2021, in the matter of Ram Prasad Nayak Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., wherein it was categorically held that in the absence of actual work having been performed, and in the absence of any specific direction for back wages in the reinstatement order, the claim for back wages is not sustainable. It is urged that the facts of the present case are squarely covered by the said decision and, therefore, the petitioner’s claim deserves to be rejected on this ground alone. He further submits that the petitioner is not entitled to any back wages as a matter of right, and in the absence of any legal or
Decision
factual foundation to support such claim, the writ petition to that extent deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances surrounding the present case, and having due regard to the well-settled position of law that an employee who has been acquitted or discharged from criminal proceedings is entitled to the restoration of all consequential service benefits, it is settled position that the 8 petitioner is legally entitled to the grant of all service-related benefits. This entitlement accrues from the date of his discharge in the criminal revision proceedings, i.e., from 16.11.2021. Accordingly, the petitioner ought to be deemed in continuous service with effect from the said date, with all attendant benefits including but not limited to salary, allowances, seniority and promotional considerations. 7. Accordingly, this petition is allowed in part. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat