CHANDRA PRAKASH SAHU vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1 / 4

CGHC010409222026 2026:CGHC:45022
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 7645 of 2026
Chandra Prakash Sahu S/o. Shri Basant Kumar Sahu, Aged About 34
Years R/o. Shikshit Nagar, Ward No.24, Near Reliance Tower, Charoda,
Durg, District Durg (C.G.).
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education
Department, Capitol Complex, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)
JYOTI
SHARMA
2. Kailash Mansarowar Shikshan Samiti, Charoda, Through Its
Secretary Basant Kumar Sahu, S/o Shri B.R. Sahu, Aged About 60
Years, R/o Shikshit Nagar, Ward No. 24, Near Reliance Tower, Charoda,
District Durg (C.G.).
Digitally signed by
JYOTI SHARMA
Date: 2026.10.27
11:02:11 +0530
3. Registrar, Firms And Societies, Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal
Nagar, Nava Raipur (C.G.).
4. Pawan Kumar Sahu, S/o Shri B.R. Sahu, Aged About 57 Years R/o
Talpuri, Block-A, Tulip-361, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.).
5. Mansarowar Vidyalaya English Medium, Janjgiri, Cbse Affiliation No.
333026, Through Its Principal Pawan Kumar Sahu, District Durg (C.G.).
6. District Education Officer, District Durg (C.G.).
... Respondent(s)
(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate
For Respondents/
State
: Mr. Aditya Tiwari, P.L.
(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU)
Order on Board
26/10/2026
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was
appointed as Manager (Accounts) in Mansarowar Vidyalaya

2 / 4
English Medium, Janjgiri, District Durg, with effect from
01.01.2015, but his salary has not been paid since June, 2021,
despite his continued discharge of duties. He further submits that
the petitioner has submitted a representation dated 09.07.2026
before the Respondent No. 3/ Registrar, Firms and Societies for
redressal of his grivenace which relates to payment of salary by a
private school due to some dispute between the managing
committee, but no action has been taken thereon. Hence, learned
counsel prays for a direction to the respondent authorities to
consider and decide the petitioner's representation in accordance
with law within a time-bound period.
2. Learned counsel for the State, opposing the submissions made by
learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the present writ
petition is not maintainable, as the petitioner seeks payment of
salary from respondent No. 2/Society, which is a purely private
institution, neither established under any statute nor owned,
controlled, or substantially financed by the Government, and
therefore, does not fall within the definition of “State” or “other
authority” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is further
submitted that the grievance raised by the petitioner relates to
non-payment of salary by the said private institution, and
respondent No. 3/Registrar, Firms and Societies, is not the
competent authority to adjudicate upon the petitioner's claim for
payment of salary. Learned counsel would further submit that the
dispute is essentially private in nature, for which the petitioner has
an alternative and efficacious remedy before the appropriate
forum. Accordingly, it is contended that the extraordinary writ

3 / 4
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India cannot be invoked in the facts and circumstances of the
case, and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed as not
maintainable.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents on record.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of
the material available on record, this Court finds that the petitioner
has approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondent
authorities to consider and decide his representation dated
09.07.2026 concerning the non-payment of salary by respondent
No. 2/Society, a private institution. The grievance raised by the
petitioner essentially pertains to a service dispute of a private
nature arising out of the alleged non-payment of salary. The
dispute, as projected, does not involve any public law element,
nor has the petitioner demonstrated that the institution in question
is discharging any public duty in relation to his employment or that
the terms and conditions of his service are governed by any
statutory provisions. Further, the institution has not been shown to
possess the status of ‘State’ or ‘other authority’ within the meaning
of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. In the absence of any
statutory obligation on the part of the respondent authorities to
adjudicate upon the petitioner's claim for payment of salary, no
direction, as prayed for, can be issued in exercise of the
extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered
view that the grievance raised by the petitioner does not warrant

4 / 4
interference in the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
5. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present writ petition, being
not maintainable, is accordingly dismissed. However, the
petitioner shall be at liberty to avail such other remedy as may be
available to him in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(BIBHU DATTA GURU)
JUDGE
Jyoti