Smt. Manju Baghel vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5000 Chatt

                                                                                    NAFR
                   HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                   WPS No. 5264 of 2022
         Smt. Manju Baghel W/o R.K. Baghel Aged About 54 Years Posted As Assistant
         Nursing Superintendent, Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Memorial Hospital, Raipur, R/o
         H.No. A-46, Raj Villa, Jhanda Chowk, Radha Swami Nagar, Bhatagaon, Raipur,
         Chhattisgarh.
                                                                             ---- Petitioner
                                           Versus
      1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health and Family
         Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
      2. Principal Secretary Department Of Finance, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Raipur,
         Chhattisgarh.
      3. Office Joint Director and Superintendent Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Memorial
         Hospital Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
      4. The Joint Director Treasury Accounts And Pension, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.




04/08/2022         Mr. Akash Kumar Kundu, Advocate for the Petitioner.

                   Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Dy. Advocate General 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 31.03.2022 (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

santosh