2026:CGHC:8574 Digitally signed by AFR SISTA SISTA SOMAYAJULU SOMAYAJULU Date:

2026.02.18 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

15:58:49 +0530 WPS No. 3497 of 2020 Ashish Gupta, S/o Late Mahesh Prasad Gupta, aged about 41 years, R/o Ward No.12, Hatripara, Near Mekari Mandir, Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh.

... Petitioner versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Principal Secretary, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. The Collector (Adivasi Vikas), Kabirdham, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh.

3. The Joint Collector, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ashesh Kumar, Advocate on behalf of Mr.

Siddharth Pandey, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr. Sharad Mishra, Panel Lawyer.

Single Bench:-

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

Order on Board

17/02/2026

1. The petitioner herein calls in question legality, validity and correctness of the order dated 6-8-2019 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2 by which while reinstating him in service, his suspension period has been treated to be in continuous service, however, refused to grant consequential benefits.

2. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop: -

3. The petitioner was working as Cook in the Aadivasi Boys Hostel, Bodla, Block Bodla, Tahsil Kawardha, District Kabirdham and during the course of inspection, he was found to have treated the students residing therein with cruelty and said to have beaten the students leading to institution of departmental enquiry and he was placed under suspension on 23-8-2016 and after full-fledged enquiry, by the impugned order dated 6-8-2019, he was subjected to minor punishment of stoppage of one increment with non-cumulative effect and it was further directed that suspension period will be treated as period on duty, however, pay and allowances for that period have been refused. The petitioner has called in question the part of order by which pay and allowances have been refused.

4. Mr. Ashesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner herein, would submit that the Collector is absolutely unjustified in denying the consequential benefits arising from the imposition of punishment and as such, all the consequential benefits ought to have been awarded while reinstating the petitioner. Therefore, the order impugned denying payment of pay and allowances for the period of suspension be set aside.

5. Mr. Sharad Mishra, learned State counsel, would support the impugned order and oppose the writ petition and would rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Om Pal Singh v.

Disciplinary Authority and others¹ to support his contention.

6. True it is that while imposing minor punishment of stoppage of one increment with non-cumulative effect, the suspension period of the petitioner has been treated as period on duty, however, consequential benefits for that period have been denied, which has been called in question.

7. In this regard, the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Om Pal Singh (supra) may be noticed herein in which their Lordships have held that if reinstatement is a consequence of imposition of a lesser punishment, neither back wages nor continuity of service nor consequential benefits follow as a natural or necessary consequence of such reinstatement, and observed as under: -

“10. The only question that arises for our consideration in the present appeal is whether the appellant is entitled to payment of salary for the period of suspension i.e. from 29-7-2003 to 10- 9-2012. There is no need to reiterate that the order of dismissal was set aside and the punishment of reduction in timescale of pay was imposed on the appellant. It is clear that the findings of the inquiry officer that the charges against the appellant were proved and have not been disturbed. Reduction of the penalty from dismissal to that of reduction in timescale of pay does not result in exoneration of t