Pradeep Kumar Mishra vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2026 Latest Caselaw 832 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Pradeep Kumar Mishra vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 March, 2026

                                                  1




Digitally
                                                                  2026:CGHC:13404
signed by
AJINKYA
PANSARE                                                                        NAFR
Date:
2026.03.20
17:44:01
+0530
                      HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                                      WPS No. 736 of 2021

                Pradeep Kumar Mishra S/o Late Shri P.N. Mishra Aged About 55
                 Years R/o Shanti Chowk, Behind Samrat Sweets Raipur District
                 Raipur. Post Sr. Superintendent, Pandit Ravishanker University
                 Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
                                                                  ... Petitioner(s)

                                              versus

               1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Ministry Of Higher
                  Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Mantralaya, Raipur
                  Chhattisgarh.,    District   :    Raipur,      Chhattisgarh

               2. Vice Chancellor, Pandit             Ravishanker University Raipur
                  Chhattisgarh.,   District            :      Raipur,   Chhattisgarh

               3. Registrar Pandit Ravishanker University Raipur District Raipur
                  Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
                                                                 ... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner : Mr. Anurag Jha, Advocate For State : Mr. Abhyuday Tripathi, P.L. For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board

20.3.2026

1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:-

10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to withdraw/quash the order impugned.

10.2 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the recovered amount which has been deducted from the salary of the petitioner along with interest to the petitioner.

10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit along with cost of the petition.

2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits petitioner is holding the

post of Senior Superintendent under respondent-University. He

further submits that petitioner was granted Rs. 200/- per month

motor vehicle allowance from the year 2000 but a decision has

been taken by the respondent-University on 6.9.2017 to withdraw

the said allowance and recover the amount paid to the petitioner

on the ground that such benefit was extended without prior

sanction and approval of the competent authority. He contends

that order impugned has been passed without affording

opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, therefore deserves to be

quashed.

3) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respective

respondents submit that order under challenge is an internal

communication between Registrar of University and Senior Audit

Officer, O/o Accountant General, State of Chhattisgarh and no

specific order of recovery has been issued against the petitioner,

thus this petition is misconceived.

4) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents

placed on record.

5) It appears that letter dated 6.9.2017 (Annexure P/1) was issued

by Registrar of University to Senior Audit Officer, O/o Accountant

General stating that employees of respondent-University have

been extended benefit of Rs. 200/- as motor vehicle allowance

since year 2000 without approval of the competent authority.

However, pursuant to said letter no decision has been taken by

the respondents against the petitioner.

6) Taking into consideration the fact that there is no specific order of

recovery against the petitioner, I am not inclined to entertain this

petition. Consequently, this petition deserves to be and is hereby

dismissed. However, petitioner would be at liberty to make

representation before the respondent authorities raising therein all

his grievances.

Sd/-

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya