Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 15105
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J
ANIL KUMAR SAHU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
WPS No. 5047 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Udhoram Koshley
For the Respondents: Anmol Sharma
Terms and conditions specified in an appointment order, issued after due scrutiny of qualifications, cannot be unilaterally altered or deviated from by the employer at a later stage.
Headnote:(A) Employment Terms - Honorarium Payment - Deviation from the conditions of the appointment order at a subsequent stage is not permissible once the appointment is made after due scrutiny of qualifications. (Para 5)
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to the honorarium as specified in the appointment order despite subsequent claims of lack of qualification.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispute over unpaid honorarium and the respondent's claim of insufficient qualification. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. appointment terms are binding once qualifications are scrutinized and the order is issued. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. disposal of petition with directions for representation and consideration. (Para 6) |
Order on Board
30.04 .2026
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):-
“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, writ or writs, order or orders to respondents for directing the respondent authorities to pay the salary of petitioner from 05-11-2019 to 12-03-2020.
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus, writ or writs, order or orders to respondents for directing the respondent authorities to decide the representation dated 13-07-2020 and 19-07-2021 within stipulated time period.
10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem-fit and appropriate.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was working as Guest Teacher (Mathematics) in the Government Ashram Lemaru, District Korba by virtue of order of appointment dated 18.10.2019. He would further submit that according to conditions enumerated in the order of appointment, the honorarium payable to the petitioner was Rs. 16,000/- per month but he has not been paid honorarium for period from 05-11-2019 to 12-03-2020.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that the petitioner was lacking requisite qualification. He would further submit that the respondents are ready to pay honorarium @ Rs. 4,000/- per month. He would submit that the petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.
5. Perusal of order of appointment would make it clear that the petitioner would be entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 16,000/- per month and he has not been paid honorarium for period from 05-11-2019 to 12-03-2020. The contention made by Mr. Anmol Sharma, Panel Lawyer cannot be accepted as the petitioner was appointed after due scrutiny of the documents with regard to his educational qualification. Deviation from conditions of order of appointment at subsequent stage is not permissible. Accordingly, the instant petition is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to make a representation before the respondents No. 2 to 4, and in turn, the said authorities are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner in light of the observations made herein-above within a period of 90 days from its receipt.
6. With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of
