Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA TIWARI TIWARI Date:

2026.02.26 1

16:52:39 +0530

2026:CGHC:9928-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 190 of 2026

1 - Sushila Devi Kurrey Wd/o Dwarika Prasad Kurrey, Aged About 50 Years R/o House No. 223, Nandor Kalan, Janjgir Champa, Distt. Janjgir Champa (C.G.)

2 - Governer Baiyal Kurrey S/o Dwarika Prasad Kurrey Aged About 33 Years R/o House No. 223, Nandor Kalan, Janjgir Champa, Distt. Janjgir Champa (C.G.)

... Appellants versus

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Technical Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

2 - Director, Directorate of Technical Education, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.)

3 - Joint Director, Treasury Account And Pension, Bilaspur, Distt.

Bilaspur (C.G.)

4 - Principal, Government Engineering College, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.)

... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellants : Mr. Syed Majid Ali, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Praveen Das, Additional Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

2 6 .02.2026

1. Heard Mr. Syed Majid Ali, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. Praveen Das, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents.

2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 19.12.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.10499 of 2025 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants/writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge has been allowed.

3. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal are that late Shri Dwarika Prasad Kurrey, husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellant No. 2, was appointed as Workshop Instructor in the year 1993 and was posted at Government Engineering College, Bilaspur, State of Chhattisgarh. He remained absent from duty allegedly from 05.11.2005 onwards. After a prolonged period, a departmental enquiry was initiated against him vide order dated 20.05.2024 on account of unauthorized absence. However, it is an admitted position that the said employee had expired on 22.12.2023, i.e., prior to initiation of the departmental enquiry as well as prior to passing of the termination order dated 03.06.2024, whereby his services were ordered to be terminated.

4. Aggrieved by the termination order dated 03.06.2024 passed against a deceased employee, the appellants herein preferred the writ petition seeking quashment of the said order and further prayed for grant of back wages, retiral dues and all consequential service benefits including compassionate appointment. The learned Single Judge, after considering the matter, passed the impugned order, which is under challenge in the present writ appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned order dated 19.12.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Single Judge, to the extent it denies back wages and full consequential benefits, is patently erroneous and unsustainable in law and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that once the learned Single Bench has categorically held in paragraph 12 of the judgment that the entire departmental proceedings stood abated on account of the death of the employee and that the deceased employee shall be deemed to have remained in service till his death on 22.12.2023, there was no legal justification to direct calculation of retiral dues w.e.f. 05.11.2005 by treating the period of absence to his detriment. It is contended that such direction is self-contradictory and contrary to settled principles of service jurisprudence. When an employee is held to have continued in service till the date of death, his legal heirs are entitled to fixation of pay up to the date of death and all consequential retiral benefits, including pension, on the basis of the last pay legally payable.

6. Learned counsel further submits