Digitally signed by RAME SH 2026:CGHC:14256 KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.04.01 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6124 of 2021 * - Kshama Sharma W/o Satyendra Prasad Sharma Aged About 45 Years R/o Vivekanand Ward No. 37, Gali No.04, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Social Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2 – Director, Directorate Of Social Welfare, D.K.S. Bhawan Old Building Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3 - Collector Bastar, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

4 - Joint Director District Office Social Welfare, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

5 - Deputy Director District Office Social Welfare, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Preetam Singh, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Kishore Narayan, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Amandeep Singh, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board

25/03/2026

1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

“10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside impugned order dated 10.11.2020 (Annexure P/14) and impugned order dated 30.06.2021 (Annexure P/16), in the interest of justice.

10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to give salary to the petitioner for 123 days counting those days as child care leave, in the interest of justice.

10.3 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to grant consequential benefits flowing from grant of prayer no. 1, in the interest of justice.

10.4 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem and proper in the present circumstances of the case.”

2. At the relevant time, the petitioner was posted as Superintendent of Government Blind and Deaf School, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.). The petitioner applied for child care leave for a period from 13.01.2020 to 13.03.2020; second application was moved for a period from 14.03.2020 to 30.04.2020 and third application for a period from 01.05.2020 to 14.05.2020. Though the applications were not considered by the Collector Jagdalpur, but the leave was availed, and therefore a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 23.01.2020; second show cause notice was issued on 26.06.2020 by Secretary Social Welfare Department. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 vide order 10.11.2020 inflicted penalty and declared the period of absence i.e. 123 days as dies-non. Respondent No.1 passed a separate order on 30.06.2021 and inflicted penalty of stoppage of 02 increments with non-cumulative effect.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that vide order dated 10.11.2020, respondent No. 1 inflicted major penalty without holding any inquiry and without affording opportunity of hearing, therefore, said order is bad-in-law. With regard to second order dated 30.06.2021, he would submit that on the same set of allegations, the order dated 30.06.2021 was passed by respondent No. 1 and therefore subsequent order is also bad-in-law.

4. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondents/State would oppose. He would contend that initially the period of absence of 123 days was declared dies-non by respondent No. 1 and subsequently said order was modified and the authority concerned inflicted penalty of stoppage of 02 increments with non- cumulative effect. He would submit that the petitioner preferred an appeal but has suppressed this fact, thus, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the instant petition.

6. The High Court of M.P., in the matter of Battilal vs. Union of India and others reported in 2005 (3) MPHT 32 (DB), held that when the authority directs that the period would be treated as “dies non”, such