Chattisgarh High Court

Mohan Lal Taram vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 February, 2025

                                               1


Digitally
signed by
SMT
NIRMALA
RAO




                                                             2025:CGHC:10015


                                                                         NAFR

                      HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                      WPS No. 4274 of 2018

            1 - Mohan Lal Taram S/o Lakhan Lal Aged About 41 Years Presently
            Working As Assistant Teacher Panchayat At Government Primary School
            Bharritola - 36, Block Doundi, District Balod Chhattisgarh., District :
            Balod,                                                   Chhattisgarh

            2 - Vishnu Singh Sahu S/o Late Ajit Singh Sahu Aged About 41 Years
            Presently Working As Assistant Teacher Panchayat At Government
            Primary School Salhe - 2 , Block Doundi, District Balod Chhattisgarh.

            3 - Lalit Kumar Dewangan S/o Makhan Lal Aged About 47 Years
            Presently Working As Assistant Teacher Panchayat At Government Girls
            Primary School Dhotimtola , Block Doundi, District Balod Chhattisgarh.,
            District             :              Balod,                Chhattisgarh

            4 - Bhushan Lal Kunjam S/o Rakhan Lal Aged About 43 Years Presently
            Working As Assistant Teacher Panchayat At Government Primary School
            Magardah     Block      Doundi,    District  Balod     Chhattisgarh.

            5 - Anand Ram Sarpa S/o Gulchand Aged About 47 Years Presently
            Working As Assistant Teacher Panchayat At Government Primary School
            Salhe , Block Doundi, District Balod Chhattisgarh., District : Balod,
            Chhattisgarh

            6 - Komal Singh Gavarna S/o Jagdish Ram Aged About 46 Years
            Presently Working As Assistant Teacher Panchayat At Government
            Primary School Tuadand , Block Doundi, District Balod Chhattisgarh.

            7 - Baldev Singh Sahu S/o Derha Ram Sahu Aged About 45 Years
            Presently Working As Teacher Panchayat At Government Middle School
            Kondekasa , Block Doundi, District Balod Chhattisgarh.
                                                                   ... Petitioner(s)

                                         versus

            1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of
            Panchayat And Rural Development Mantralaya Police Station Rakhi,
            Tahsil Aarang,   Naya    Raipur  District Raipur   Chhattisgarh.
                                     -2-




2 - Commissioner - Cum - Director , Directorate Of Panchayat Naya
Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3 - Chief Executive Officer , Zila Panchayat Balod District Balod
Chhattisgarh.,     District       :     Balod,      Chhattisgarh

4 - Additional Chief Executive Officer , ( Education ) Doundi, District
Balod                                                    Chhattisgarh.

5 - Block Education Officer Doundi, District Balod Chhattisgarh., District :
Balod, Chhattisgarh
                                                      ---- Respondents

For Petitioners : Mr. Om Prakash Sahu, Advocate. For State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 28.02.2025

1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following

relief(s):-

"10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the order dated 22.05.2018 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent authorities.

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to continuing the benefit of pay scale already granted to the petitioner.

10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate."

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that

the petitioners were initially appointed to the post of Assistant

Teacher (Panchayat) and Teacher (Panchayat) at Government

Primary School, Balod, District Balod (C.G.). He would further

submit that the petitioners are receiving the benefit of salary

according to the Rules and Circulars issued by the State

Government. He would contend that on 22.05.2018, an order was

issued by respondents No. 4 & 5 with regard to recovery of the

excess amount paid to them on account of wrong fixation of salary

from the year 2012-13. He would further contend that the order

dated 22.05.2018 was issued pursuant to the objection raised by

the Deputy Director Local Fund Audit, Rajnandgaon. It is

contended by counsel for the petitioners that no opportunity of

hearing was afforded to the petitioners by the respondent

authorities before taking such a harsh decision. He would state

that the petitioners are Class-III employees and they have been

receiving the benefit of excess salaries since the year 2012-13,

whereas, the order was issued on 22.05.2018 five years after the

date of wrong fixation of salary. He would also contend that the

decision taken by respondents No. 4 & 5 is contrary to the

judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of

State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)

and others, 2015 AIR SCW 501.

3. On the other hand, learned Deputy Government Advocate

appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by

counsel for the petitioners. He would submit that respondents No.4

& 5 have issued a show-cause notice to the petitioners. He would

further submit that the petitioners instead of filing a reply to the

show-cause notice, have approached this Court by filing this

petition. He would contend that though there is a separate cause

of action for each petitioner but they have filed a joint petition

which is not maintainable. He would lastly submit that the

petitioners may file a reply to the show-cause notice and the

authorities concerned would decide the issue strictly in accordance

with law.

4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the

documents.

5. Admittedly, the petitioners were appointed to the post of Assistant

Teacher (Panchayat) and Teacher (Panchayat) at Government

Primary School, Balod, District Balod (C.G.). The order dated

22.05.2018 was issued by respondents No.4 & 5 with regard to the

recovery of the excess amount paid to them on account of the

wrong fixation of salary from the year 2012-13. The petitioners

have been directed to submit their response/consent. It appears

that the opportunity of hearing has not been afforded to the

petitioners and directly, a decision has been taken by respondents

No.4 & 5.

6. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are Class-III employees and

the decision was taken by respondents No. 4 & 5 after five years

from the date of wrong fixation of salary.

7. In the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court

held as under:-

"(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-

III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service).

(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.

(iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.

(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a

higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.

(v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover."

8. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, the present

petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners to file a

detailed representation(s) before respondents No.4 & 5 in

response to the order dated 22.05.2018 and in turn, the authorities

concerned are directed to decide the representation(s) in an

objective manner strictly in accordance with the law laid down by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra).

It is expected that the authority concerned shall decide the

representation(s) made by the petitioners preferably within a

period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

9. The interim order dated 03.07.2018 granted in favour of the

petitioners shall remain effective for a period of 60 days.