Chattisgarh High Court
Pradeep Kumar Mishra vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 March, 2026
1
Digitally
2026:CGHC:13404
signed by
AJINKYA
PANSARE NAFR
Date:
2026.03.20
17:44:01
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 736 of 2021
Pradeep Kumar Mishra S/o Late Shri P.N. Mishra Aged About 55
Years R/o Shanti Chowk, Behind Samrat Sweets Raipur District
Raipur. Post Sr. Superintendent, Pandit Ravishanker University
Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Ministry Of Higher
Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Mantralaya, Raipur
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Vice Chancellor, Pandit Ravishanker University Raipur
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Registrar Pandit Ravishanker University Raipur District Raipur
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner : Mr. Anurag Jha, Advocate For State : Mr. Abhyuday Tripathi, P.L. For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 20.3.2026
1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:-
10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to withdraw/quash the order impugned.2
10.2 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the recovered amount which has been deducted from the salary of the petitioner along with interest to the petitioner.
10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit along with cost of the petition.
2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits petitioner is holding the post of Senior Superintendent under respondent-University. He further submits that petitioner was granted Rs. 200/- per month motor vehicle allowance from the year 2000 but a decision has been taken by the respondent-University on 6.9.2017 to withdraw the said allowance and recover the amount paid to the petitioner on the ground that such benefit was extended without prior sanction and approval of the competent authority. He contends that order impugned has been passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, therefore deserves to be quashed.
3) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respective respondents submit that order under challenge is an internal communication between Registrar of University and Senior Audit Officer, O/o Accountant General, State of Chhattisgarh and no specific order of recovery has been issued against the petitioner, thus this petition is misconceived.
4) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.
5) It appears that letter dated 6.9.2017 (Annexure P/1) was issued 3 by Registrar of University to Senior Audit Officer, O/o Accountant General stating that employees of respondent-University have been extended benefit of Rs. 200/- as motor vehicle allowance since year 2000 without approval of the competent authority. However, pursuant to said letter no decision has been taken by the respondents against the petitioner.
6) Taking into consideration the fact that there is no specific order of recovery against the petitioner, I am not inclined to entertain this petition. Consequently, this petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. However, petitioner would be at liberty to make representation before the respondent authorities raising therein all his grievances.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya