Smt. Laxmi Sarkar vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 4939 Chatt

                  HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                 WPS No. 5208 of 2022
 Smt. Laxmi Sarkar W/o Lt. K. C. Sarkar Aged About 59 Years Posted As Assistant
  Nursing Superintendent, Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Memorial Hospital, Raipur R/o
  Pachpedi Naka, Ring Road, Laxmi Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner
                                         Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family
   Welfare, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Principal Secretary Department Of Finance, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar,
   Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Office Joinint Directoinr And Superintendent Dr. Bhim Raoin Amdedrar Memoinrial
   Hoinspital Raipur Chhattisgarh
4. The Joinint Directoinr Treasury Accoinunts And Pensioinn, Raipur Chhattisgarh
                                                                      ---- Respondents

7-

02-08-2022 Mr. Akash Kumar Kundu, counsel for the petitioner.

Mr. Subham Verma, PL for the State.

Heard on I.A,No.1, which is an application for grant of interim relief.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner who was working as Staff Nurse was given three or four increments on the basis that she is holding decree or diploma at the time of initial appointment. This grant of three or four increments was continued even after re-organization of the State of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. Thereafter, all of a sudden respondent authority issued a recovery order dated 31-3-2021 (Annexure P/1) recovering the amount which has been paid by the State treating as excess payment. He would further submit that the recovery order issued by the respondent authority is against the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in 2015 (4) SCC 334 and Thomas Daniel Vs. State of Kerala, Civil Appeal No 7115 of 2010, decided on 2-5-2022 wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court has considered the issue and stayed the recovery proceedings.

In the light of aforesaid judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, recovery so far as it relates to the petitioner shall remain stayed, till the next date of hearing.

List this case on 12-10-2022.

In view of the above, I.A.No.1 is allowed. In the meanwhile, State counsel is directed to file reply and also counter affidavit wherein they will narrate the factual matrix whether the grant of three or four increments can be recovered retrospectively when the amount has been paid by the State itself as per policy which was prevailing in the year 1985 and whether this circular/policy can be withdrawn retrospectively or not.

Let the counter affidavit should consist of query raised by this court in foregoing paragraph..

Sd/-

(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

Raju