Anjani Singh vs The State Of Chhattisgarh
2023 Latest Caselaw 203 Chatt

                                            1



                                                                              NAFR
                   HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                      Order Sheet
                                 WPS No. 124 of 2023
Anjani Singh S/o Parsuram Singh Aged About 59 Years Presently Working As
Platoon Commander In The 17th Battalion, Chhattisgarh Armed Force, Kabirdham,
District Kabirdham (C.G.)
                                                                      -----Petitioner
                                         VERSUS
1.   The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Home Department (Police),
     Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur
     (C.G.)
2.   The Director General Of Police Police Head Quarter, Raipur, District Raipur
     (C.G.)
3.   The Additional Director General Of Police Chhattisgarh Armed Force, Police
     Head Quarter, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
4.   The Inspector General Of Police Chhattisgarh Armed Force, Police Head
     Quarter, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
5.   The Commandant 17th Special (I/r) Battalion, Chhattisgarh Armed Force,
     Kabirdham, District Kabirdham (C.G.)
                                                                    -----Respondent

11.01.2023 Mr. Sushil Dubey, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr. Akash Pandey, P.L. for Respondents-State. Heard.

Issue notice to Respondents.

Learned State Counsel accepts notice on behalf of

respondents, hence, process fee is not required to be paid for

issuance of notice to those respondents. He prays for and is

granted three weeks' time to file reply.

Also heard on I.A. No. 01 which is an application for grant

of interim relief.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is

Class-III employee and holding the post of Platoon Commander

as on date. He contended that respondents have issued an

order dated 01.12.2022 for recovery of Rs.1,00,868/-. He

contended that reasons assigned for recovery of amount is

excess payment. In the order it is not mentioned that excess

payment is made on account of any misrepresentation of

petitioner. As petitioner is holding Class-III post and therefore

no recovery is permissible if any any excess payment is made.

He placed reliance on the judgment of State of Punjab Vs.

Rafiq Masih, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334.

Considering the submission of learned counsel for

petitioner, purely as an interim measure, it is directed that effect

and operation of impugned order dated 01.12.2022 shall

remain stayed, till the next date of hearing.

Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/-

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

Balram