The Chhattisgarh High Court reaffirmed that, during periods where government orders relax the requirement of physical attendance for teachers owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, salaries and related service benefits cannot be withheld if duties (such as online classes) are discharged. This judgment upholds existing administrative directions, creating strong binding precedent within the education sector for issues of salary denial during statutory exemptions.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPS/4901/2020 of DURGESH PARATE Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010260882020 |
| Date of Registration | 19-11-2020 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR CHANDRAVANSHI |
| Court | High Court Of Chhattisgarh |
| Precedent Value | Binding within the jurisdiction of Chhattisgarh High Court |
| Type of Law | Public Service Law / Service Conditions (Education Sector) |
| Questions of Law | Whether denial of salary to a teacher for non-physical presence during the COVID-19 period, when official orders mandated only limited presence, is justified. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that, where official orders due to the COVID-19 pandemic expressly relieved teachers from physical presence requirements and the petitioner continued to perform duties via online classes, it is impermissible to treat the period as unauthorized absence and deny salary. The authorities failed to produce any contrary direction requiring the petitioner’s physical attendance. The salary must be paid for periods where government orders permitted teaching duties to be discharged online. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Relied upon government circulars/orders (Annexure P/2 to P/4) permitting only limited staff presence and the conduct of duties (e.g., online classes) during COVID-19. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner, a government school lecturer, was marked on leave without pay for 08.09.2020 to 20.10.2020 although government orders had exempted all teachers but certain designated staff from physical presence due to COVID-19, and the petitioner continued teaching via online classes. Attendance and salary for part of the period (08.09.2020 to 21.09.2020) were later granted; the remaining period was challenged. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts, public education authorities, and state government offices within Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts in similar factual contexts related to COVID-19 administrative exemptions |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that, where government circulars exempt physical attendance due to public health emergencies (like COVID-19), and faculty perform online duties, salary cannot be withheld for absence from physical campus.
- Salaries must be paid for pandemic periods where limited presence is required by administrative orders, unless contrary instructions exist.
- Documentary proof of compliance with online duties can be cited by employees denied pay for such periods.
- Respondent-authorities must justify denial of pay with reference to explicit official directions, not assumption of physical presence requirements.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court carefully analyzed successive government orders (Annexure P/2-P/4) issued during the COVID-19 pandemic, establishing that physical presence was limited only to designated staff.
- There was no evidence of any direction to the petitioner to attend school physically for the disputed period.
- The petitioner continued teaching via online classes, as permitted by official orders, satisfying employment obligations.
- The respondent’s action of denying pay for “absence” was inconsistent with the evidenced administrative policy granting exceptions for non-physical attendance.
- The Court relied exclusively on administrative circulars/orders, not needing to cite prior judicial precedents, and granted the relief as a logical application of service law in administrative context.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Official orders during the COVID-19 pandemic exempted all but two teachers at each school from physical attendance.
- The petitioner continued to perform duties via online classes during the disputed period.
- Leave without pay and denial of attendance/salary was inconsistent with government orders.
Respondent (State)
- Eventually granted salary and counted attendance for 08.09.2020 to 21.09.2020 based on direction from District Education Officer.
- No counter-evidence or contrary administrative order requiring full staff presence during the remaining disputed period.
Factual Background
Due to COVID-19, the Chhattisgarh government issued several orders in 2020 restricting physical presence at schools to only essential staff for administrative work. The petitioner, a lecturer, was absent from physical duties between 08.09.2020 and 20.10.2020 but continued to take online classes. The principal treated this period as leave without pay. Government authorities later conceded and paid salary for part of this period but denied it for the rest, leading to this writ.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court exercised its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India to provide relief in service law matters concerning administrative implementation of government orders.
- The analysis focused on administrative/executive orders regulating attendance at government educational institutions during COVID-19, interpreting these in light of public employees’ rights and obligations.
- No “reading down” or expansive interpretation of statutes; direct application of official administrative orders to the facts.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Judgment affirms and implements government administrative orders without creating judicial conflict.
Citations
- 2025:CGHC:44922
- NAFR (Not a Full Report)