Chattisgarh High Court
Bhupal Ram Matshyapal vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 July, 2025
-1-
Digitally signed
by NADIM
MOHLE 2025:CGHC:29334
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 5087 of 2018
Bhupal Ram Matshyapal S/o S/o Late Shri Sonau Ram Matshyapal Aged About 60
Years Occupation- Lecturer, R/o Quarter No. A/63, Irrigation Colony, Rudri, Dhamtari,
District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education,
Mantralya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
2 - Director Of Public Instructions, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - District Education Officer, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari,
Chhattisgarh
4 - Joint Director, Treasury Account And Pension, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner : Mr. Likesh Kumar, Advocate, holding the brief of
Mr. Renu Kochar, Advocate
For State : Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Additional Advocate General
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
01.07.2025
1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-
"10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
call for the entire records relating to the petitioner case
for grant of two advance increment for kind perusal of
this Hon'ble Court
10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
issue writ in the nature of certiorari and quash order of
demand of recovery of the two advance increment
Annexure P/1.
10.3 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing
respondents to pay two advance Increment from the
date when petitioner acquired qualification of D.E.D.
further respondents maybe directed to repay the
amount which has been recovered with intrest.
10.4 That this Hon'ble court may be further pleased to
pass any other consequential and other orders/ writs
which this Hon'ble court deems just and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case."
2) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, who was
appointed as a Teacher, passed the D.Ed. examination from the M.P. Board of
Secondary Education, Bhopal in the year 2001. Therefore, he was extended the
benefit of two advance increments by the department. He would contend that
the petitioner had taken prior permission from the department before
undergoing D.Ed. training. It is also contended that the respondent authorities
passed the order of recovery vide Annexure P/1, whereby the benefit of two
advance increments was withdrawn and an order of recovery was also issued. He
would submit that the order has been passed by the respondent authorities after
16 years, and no opportunity of hearing was afforded. He has placed reliance on
the judgment in State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer);
(2015) 4 SCC 334.
3) On the other hand, Mr. Gupta would submit that the Hon'ble Division Bench in
WA/130/2014 (State of Chhattisgarh and Others v. Tilak Ram Patel) has held
that after the cut-off date of appointment i.e., 16.06.1993, the teachers who had
passed B.Ed./D.Ed./BTI etc. would not be entitled to get the benefit of two
advance increments. He would contend that the petitioner passed the D.Ed.
examination after the cut-off date; therefore, he was not entitled to get two
advance increments, and accordingly, the impugned order was passed.
4) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on
record.
5) The petitioner passed D.Ed. in the year 2001, and the certificate was submitted
to the department; the department extended the benefit of two advance
increments. The benefit continued till 2018, and on 20.06.2018, an order was
passed, whereby the benefit of two advance increments was withdrawn and
recovery was proposed. The State, in its reply, has not stated that there was any
misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner.
6) In the matter of Tilak Ram Patel (supra), though it is held that teachers who
had passed B.Ed./D.Ed./BTI after 16.06.1993 would not be entitled to get benefit
of advance increments, it is nowhere held that an order of recovery can be
issued.
7) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra) in para 18
held as under:-
"18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which
would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments
have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their
entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to
herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the
following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers,
would be impermissible in law:
(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) In the present case, the benefit of two advance increments was extended to the
petitioner in 2002. The department detected the mistake in the year 2018. The
petitioner is a Class-III employee; therefore, the order of recovery is not
sustainable in the eyes of law.
9) In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of
Rafiq Masih (supra), since the petitioner is a Class-III employee and the excess
payment was made continuously for over 16 years without any misrepresentation
on his part, therefore, the recovery order passed by the department is
impermissible in law. The petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of two advance
increments as per the decision passed in the matter of Tilak Ram Patel (supra).
Accordingly, the order impugned (Annexure P/1) is hereby set-aside.
10) In the result, the petition is allowed.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Nadim
