The court upheld the learned Single Judge's order for payment of salary arrears and retiral dues, affirming that no jurisdictional error existed in the decision.

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

28.03.2025

1. Heard Mr. Anup Majumdar, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State/respondent No.1.

2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 06.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.2518 of 2016 , whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner and respondents therein were directed to make payment of arrears of salary to the writ petitioners within a period of 90 days along with interest @ 6% per annum and the respondents therein were also directed to release the amount of retiral dues to the writ petitioners within a period of 90 days.

3. It has been pointed out by learned counsel for the parties that in an identical matter, this Court had dismissed Writ Appeal No.177 of 2025 and Writ Appeal No.149 of 2025 vide order dated 12.03.2025 observing as follows :

“19. From perusal of the impugned order and the materials available on record, it transpires that the original petitioner was offered the post of Principal in the Institute of Hotel Management Catering Technology and Applied Nutrition, Raipur vide order dated 21.02.2007. He was conferred with drawing and disbursing power by the State Government of Chhattisgarh vide order dated 26.07.2013 and the salary of the original petitioner was revised pursuant to approval granted by the State Government dated 28.09.2013 and till the date of retirement of original petitioner dated 30.06.2014, no objection was raised by the authorities with regard to salary drawn by the original petitioner. The original petitioner was permitted to continue in the post of Principal of the Institute till the passing of the order dated 23.12.2015. It is also observed in the order impugned that the original petitioner would be entitled to receive salary till 02.03.2015 whereby the order of continuation was recalled. It is not in dispute that the services of the petitioner were continued even after the date of retirement and he worked there in the post of Principal till 23.12.2015. It is also evident from the documents that after March 2014, the respondents have not paid salary to the original petitioner till 23.12.2015.

20. Considering the fact that the original petitioner has died and recovery is proposed to be made from the legal heirs of the original petitioner and in the light of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vinayak Purshottam Dube (deceased) (supra), also considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petitions filed by the writ petitioners / private respondents herein, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court.

21. Accordingly, both the writ appeals, being devoid of merit, are liable to be and are hereby dismissed. No cost(s).”

They further submitted that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of Writ Appeal No.177 of 2025 and Writ Appeal No.149 of 2025, this appeal may also be disposed off in the same terms.

4. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this appeal is identical to Writ Appeal No.177 of 2025 and Writ Appeal No.149 of 2025, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in Writ Appeal No.177 of 2025 and Writ Appeal No.149 of 2025

5. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 12.03.2025 passed in Writ Appeal No.177 of 2025 and Writ Appeal No.149 of 2025.