2026:CGHC:9919 NAFR SOURABH BHILWAR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2026.02.26 18:00:16 +0530 Order reserved on 23-02-2026 Order delivered on 26-02-2026 REVP No. 191 of 2025 Ram Prasad Nayak S/o Bhagbali Nayak Aged About 70 Years R/o Shanti Vihar Colony, Dangniya Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Energy, Mantralya Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited Through Managing Director (CSPDCL), Dangniya Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh

3 - Superintendent Engineer Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company (Civil - Distribution) Cercal C-6, Gudiyari Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s)

(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner : Ms. Surya Kawalkar Dangi, Advocate For Respondent/ State : Mr. Anand Gupta, Dy. Govt. Advocate For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : Dr. Veena Nair, Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU)

C A V Order

1. By the present review petition, the review petitioner/ writ petitioner is seeking review of order dated 15/04/2025 passed by this Court in WPS No.1473/2021 by which the writ petition, filed by the petitioner questioning the order dated 05/02/2021 passed by the respondent/ CSPDCL whereby the petitioner was declined to grant back-wages, was dismissed with an observation that Rule 54-B of the Fundamental Rules (for brevity, ‘the FR’) would not be applicable to his case.

2. The case of the petitioner, as projected in the writ petition, is that the petitioner was initially appointed in the Electricity Board in the year 1977. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Supervisor (Civil) in the year 1995. According, to the petitioner one Manshukh Lal made a complaint to the Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur against the Additional Superintendent Engineer and the petitioner in respect of illegal demand of bribe and in the said proceeding, the FIR was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On account of registration of FIR, the petitioner has been placed under suspension by order dated 12.10.2007. Since the trial could not be concluded within a period of 3 years the suspension period has been revoked by order dated 04.09.2010. In the meantime, after completion of trial, the petitioner has been convicted by the Court of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Raipur, C.G. Owing to conviction imposed by the learned Trial Court, the petitioner has been terminated from the services by order dated 01.04.2013. The said conviction has been challenged by the petitioner before this Court in CRA No. 1153/2012, which has been allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 08.05.2020 and the petitioner has been acquitted from the charges. In the meanwhile, the petitioner retried from service on 31-8-2018 on attaining the age of superannuation. Thus, after acquittal, the petitioner made several representations before the authorities seeking back-wages, which has been rejected and petitioner was declined to grant back-wages. Thereafter the petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 05/02/2021 and the same was dismissed by this Court by the order under review. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred writ appeal No. 418/2025 which has been dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court as withdrawn vide order dated 30/06/2025 reserving liberty in favour of the writ petitioner to take recourse to law before the learned Single Judge.

Hence the present review petition.

3. (i) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that earlier counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has relied upon the provisions of Rule 54-B of the FR whereas in the facts of the present case, Rule 54 would be applicable and on the basis of the said provision, the petitioner is entitled for back-w