Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 1571
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J
AMAR SINGH GAIKWAD – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
WPS No. 1078 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ravi Kumar Banjare
For the Respondents: Akhilesh Kumar
A judicial order directing reinstatement without back wages attains finality if not challenged in a higher forum; therefore, a subsequent claim for those back wages after a significant delay is not maintainable.
Headnote:The petitioner, serving as a Panchayat Secretary, sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release due honorarium/back wages for the period from January 2001 to June 2007 with 12% interest. The petitioner had been removed from service in 2001, and while a subsequent writ petition (W.P. No. 647 of 2001) resulted in an order dated 15.3.2013 directing reinstatement, the court explicitly ordered such reinstatement to be "without back wages". The primary issue was whether the petitioner could claim back wages after a previous judicial order had specifically denied them and that order had attained finality. The court reasoned that the operative part of the order dated 15.3.2013 was clear and unambiguous in denying back wages, and since the petitioner failed to challenge this specific direction before a higher forum, the decision attained finality. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks recovery of back wages following a prior reinstatement order. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. conflict between the claim of entitlement due to illegal removal and the finality of a court order denying back wages. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. an explicit judicial direction denying back wages attains finality if not challenged. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. dismissal of petition due to lack of grounds for interference. (Para 8) |
Judgment On Board
1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following relief(s):-
10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the petitioner's due honorarium for the period from January 2001 to June 2007, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective due dates till actual payment, within a time-bound period.
10.2 Grant any other relief(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.
10.3 Award costs of the petition in favor of the petitioner.
2) Facts of the present case are that petitioner was initially appointed as Panchyat Karmi (now Panchayat Secretary) vide order dated 9.12.1995. He was removed from service on 6.2.2001. Petitioner preferred W.P. No. 647 of 2001 assailing the said removal order and interim order was issued in his favor on 4.7.2001. By virtue of interim order, petitioner joined on the said post in June, 2007. Subsequently, writ petition was disposed vide order dated 15.3.2013 directing respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner forthwith in services without back wages. In this petition, petitioner has claimed arrears of back wages for the period between January, 2001 to June, 2007.
3) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner was removed from service without conducting inquiry and affording opportunity of hearing, therefore removal order was set aside by this Court in W.P. No. 647 of 2001 . He further submits that order of removal was bad in law, therefore petitioner is entitled for back wages.
4) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that in the order dated 15.3.2013 it has been clearly held that petitioner shall not be entitled for back wages. He further submits that petitioner failed to challenge the said order, thus it attained finality, therefore this petition deserves to be dismissed.
5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost circumspection.
6) Admittedly, petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Karmi on 9.12.1995. He was removed from service in January, 2001 and said order was set aside by this Court in W.P. No. 647 of 2001 vide order dated 15.3.2013. Para-6 of the said order reads as under :-
6. In view of foregoing, the petition deserves to be and is allowed. The impugned order dated 06.02.2001 Is quashed. The respondent authorities are directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith in service, without back wages.
7) Bare reading of the operative part of order would make it clear that a direction was issued for re-instatement of petitioner on the said post without back wages. Petitioner failed to challenge the said order before higher forum, thus it attained finality. Therefore after lapse of 13 years, petitioner cannot ben permitted to claim back wages by way of this petition.
8) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, no case is made for interference. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s).
