Smt. Deepti Thakur vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5601 Chatt

                                                                          Page 1 of 2

               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                   Order Sheet
                             WPS No. 5762 of 2022

     Smt. Deepti Thakur, Aged About 59 Years Presently Posted As Staff Nurse
     At, District Hospital, Janta Colony, Raipur (C.G.)
                                                                        ---- Petitioner
                                      Versus
1.   State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department of Health And
     Family Welfare, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur
     (C.G.)
2.   The Principal, Secretary Department of Finance Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal
     Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.)
3.   The Additional Chief Medical Superintendent, District Hospital Raipur-District
     Raipur (C.G.)
4.   The Director Treasury Accounts And Pension, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar,
     Raipur, Chhattisgarh District Raipur (C.G.)
5.   The Joint Director Treasury Account And Pension, Raipur, Chhattisgarh-
     District Raipur (C.G.)
6.   Drawing And Disbursement Officer, Raipur, Chhattisgarh District Raipur
     (C.G.)
                                                                    ---- Respondents

07.09.2022 Ms. Juhi Jaiswal, counsel for the petitioner.

Mr. Suyash Dhar Badgaiya, Panel Lawyer for the State. Heard on 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 21.04.2022 (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 02.05.2022) 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 12th October, 2022.

In view of the above, application for grant of interim relief 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

Arun