1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9265 of 2023 1 - Surekha Chandravanshi W/o Narendra Chandravanshi Aged About 52 Years Presently Posted As Head Master, Govt. Primary School Bano, Block Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - District Education Officer Kabirdham, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh. 4 - Block Education Officer Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 9285 of 2023 1 - Smt. Indrani Sharma W/o Suresh Sharma, Aged About 48 Years Presently Posted As Head Master, Govt. Primary School Joratal, Block Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director, Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - District Education Officer, Kabirdham, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh. 4 - Block Education Officer, Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 9282 of 2023 1 - Jagmohan Jangade S/o Bhuvneshwar Jangade Aged About 57 Years Presently Posted As Head Master, Govt. Primary School Singhanpuri Kala, Block Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - District Education Officer Kabirdham, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh. 4 - Block Education Officer Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 250 of 2024 1 - Smt. Maina Nirala W/o Uttam Nirala Aged About 48 Years Presently Working As Head Master (Primary School) At Government Primary School, Ghoksa, Block - Kawardha, District - Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 3 ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director, Directorate Of Public Instruction, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Divisional Joint Director, Treasury Accounts And Pension, Durg, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. 4 - District Education Officer, Kabirdham, District - Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Block Education Officer Kawardha, District - Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 9267 of 2023 1 - Baba Ram Meravi S/o Hagaroo Ram Meravi Aged About 54 Years Presently Posted As Head Master, Govt. Primary School Raghunathpur, Block Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - District Education Officer Kabirdham, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh. 4 - Block Education Officer Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) 4 WPS No. 9291 of 2023 1 - Madho Das Gop S/o Jhadu Ram Gop, Aged About 46 Years Presently Posted As Head Master, Govt. Primary School Charbhata, Block Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director, Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - District Education Officer, Kabirdham, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh. 4 - Block Education Officer, Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 9298 of 2023 1 - Jagmohan Chandravanshi S/o Fekuram Chandravanshi Aged About 48 Years Presently Posted As Head Master, Govt. Primary School Semo, Block Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - District Education Officer Kabirdham, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh. 4 - Block Education Officer Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) 5 WPS No. 9333 of 2023 1 - Santosh Jangde S/o Mangla Ram Jangde, Aged About 51 Years Presently Posted As Head Master, Govt. Primary School Madanpur, Block Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director, Public Instructions, Indrawati Bahwan, Nava Raipur, Atal Naga, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - District Education Officer, Kabirdham, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh. 4 - Block Education Officer, Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 9330 of 2023 1 - Vinod Kumar Banjare S/o Sundar Lal Banjare Aged About 47 Years Presently Posted As Head Master, Govt. Primary School Kodawa, Block Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.). ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Director Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.). 3 - District Education Officer Kabirdham, District Kabirdham (C.G.). 4 - Block Education Officer Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.). --- Respondent(s) 6 WPS No. 9301 of 2023 1 - Prahlad Vaishnav S/o Narayan Das Vaishnav Aged About 58 Years Presently Posted As Head Master, Govt. Primary School Barduli, Block Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - District Education Officer Kabirdham, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh. 4 - Block Education Officer Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 9272 of 2023 1 - Prabhuram Chandravanshi S/o Basavan Chandravanshi Aged About 58 Years Presently Posted As Head Master, Govt. Primary School Dehri, Block Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.). ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.). 2 - Director Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.). 3 - District Education Officer Kabirdham, District Kabirdham (C.G.). 4 - Block Education Officer Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.). --- Respondent(s) 7 WPS No. 9332 of 2023 1 - Meena Devi Sahu W/o Sukhil Sahu, Aged About 55 Years Presently Posted A Head Master, Govt. Primary School Rabeli, Block Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director, Public Instructions, Indrawati Bahwan, Nava Raipur, Atal Naga, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - District Education Officer, Kabirdham, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh. 4 - Block Education Office, Kawardha, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) (Cause-Title is taken from CIS System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate and Mr. Govind Prasad Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Addl. A.G. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 10/02/2026 1. Since common question of facts and law is involved in these cases, as such, all these petitions are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The instant writ petition is directed against the order dated 22.11.2023 passed by respondent No.4, whereby the petitioners 8 have been directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 4,48,908/-, alleged to have been paid to them on account of excess payment. The impugned order of recovery has been passed pursuant to a notice issued by respondent No.4 without affording any show cause notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioners prior to passing the said order. The impugned notice/order does not disclose under which head the alleged excess payment was made to the petitioners. It merely states that for the period from 01.07.2018 to 30.09.2023, excess payment was made while revising the salary of the petitioners. However, the calculation sheet annexed to the notice reflects excess payment only from October, 2020, thereby revealing an apparent inconsistency. The petitioners were initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the year 1998. Upon completion of 10 years of service, the benefit of Kramonnat Vetanman was granted to the petitioners vide order dated 02.10.2013, which increment was duly sanctioned and recorded in the service book. Thus, the salary paid to the petitioners was in accordance with the sanctioned pay fixation, and no illegality can be attributed to the petitioners in receiving the same. In such circumstances, the impugned notice-cum-order of recovery, having been issued in violation of principles of natural justice and without proper basis, deserves to be set aside. Hence, the present writ petitions. 3. The petitioners have prayed for certain reliefs in the writ petitions. Though there are some sort of differences in respect of prayer 9 made by the petitioners in all the petitions, however, in sum and substance, the reliefs are altogether similar and identical. The reliefs prayed in WPS No. 9265/2023 (Surekha Chandravanshi vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others) are quoted hereinbelow in order to consider these cases and to decide the same. “10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 22.11.2023 (Annexure P/1), whereby the respondent No.4 directed the petitioner to deposit amount of Rs. 4,48,908/-, which has been paid to the petitioner on account of excess payment. 10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate.” 4. Brief facts of the case, are that, the petitioners were initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the year 1998 and, upon completion of ten years of service, were granted the benefit of Kramonnat Vetanman vide order dated 02.10.2013. Thereafter, respondent No. 4 directed the petitioners to deposit an amount of Rs. 4,48,908/- on account of alleged excess payment and issued an order of recovery without providing any show cause notice or opportunity of hearing prior to passing the impugned order. The impugned order does not disclose under which head the excess payment was made, and while the notice reflects that excess payment pertains to the period from 01.07.2018 to 30.09.2023, the calculation sheet indicates the period commencing from 10 October 2020, thereby showing clear inconsistency. The impugned order dated 22.11.2023 along with the calculation sheet is filed. The increments in question were duly sanctioned and approved in the service book, and therefore, there is no illegality in the salary paid to the petitioners, as supported by the relevant extract of the service book. The petitioners are a Class- III employee, and as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, recovery from Class-III and Class-IV employees is impermissible, and moreover, the impugned order dated 22.11.2023, though styled as a notice, is in fact a final order passed without affording any opportunity of hearing, and is therefore liable to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order passed by the respondent authorities is illegal and bad in law. The said order has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, as no notice or opportunity of hearing was ever afforded to the petitioners before passing the impugned notice-cum-order dated 22.11.2023. The petitioners were legally and validly granted the benefit of Kramonnati by the competent authority, and no excess or erroneous payment was ever made to the petitioners, nor was any misrepresentation or fraud attributable to them. Despite this, the respondent authorities, without substantiating any factual or legal basis, have arbitrarily issued the impugned notice-cum-order of recovery. The petitioners being Class-III employees, the proposed recovery is 11 impermissible in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which categorically prohibits recovery from Class-III and Class-IV employees when the alleged excess payment is not on account of any fault of the employee. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even though the impugned order is a notice, it amounts to a final order of recovery passed without granting any opportunity of hearing, and therefore the impugned action deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. Learned State counsel opposes the writ petitions and submits that the impugned order of recovery has been passed in accordance with law. It is contended that upon scrutiny of the service records, it was found that excess payment had been made to the petitioners, and therefore, the respondent authorities were justified in issuing the notice and directing recovery of the said amount. He further submits that the petitioners are not entitled to retain any amount paid in excess of their lawful entitlement and prays for dismissal of the writ petitions. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. From a perusal of the record and the impugned recovery order dated 22.11.2023, it appears that a recovery notice has been issued to each of the petitioners directing recovery of alleged excess payment for the period from 01.07.2018 to 30.09.2023. The basis of the notice is an audit/verification conducted by the Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts and Pension, Durg, wherein it 12 was opined that the pay scale of the petitioners had been wrongly calculated and, as a consequence of erroneous pay fixation, excess salary was paid to them which is sought to be recovered. However, the excess pay calculation sheet annexed with the recovery order itself reflects that the alleged excess payment dates back much earlier. The record further shows that the petitioners were granted a higher pay scale upon completion of ten years of service vide order dated 02.10.2013 issued by the Chief Executive Officers of the respective Janpad Panchayats. On the basis of the said order, their pay scale was revised and duly entered in their service books. At the relevant time, the petitioners were employees of the Panchayat Department serving as Shikshakarmi Grade-III, whose posts were subsequently redesignated as Assistant Teacher (Panchayat). Pursuant to the grant of Kramonnati Vetanman, their pay scale was fixed at Rs. 4500-120-7000 with effect from 01.11.2011. 9. Though learned State counsel submits that the petitioners were not entitled to the aforesaid pay scale and that the benefit was wrongly granted, a perusal of the orders dated 02.11.2011 and 02.10.2013 (Annexure P/2) reveals that the petitioners did not make any misrepresentation or play any role in securing the higher pay scale. The benefit flowed from a conscious administrative decision taken by the competent authority and was uniformly granted to similarly situated employees. Even if the State subsequently withdrew the circular by another circular 13 dated 01.05.2013 with retrospective effect, the fact remains that the petitioners had bona fide accepted the benefit granted to them and continued to receive salary accordingly for more than a decade. The State cannot shift the burden of its own administrative lapse upon the petitioners by issuing recovery orders after such a long period. 10. The law on the subject is settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334, and reaffirmed in Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala, (2022) 5 SCC 545, wherein it has been categorically held that recovery of excess payment is impermissible when the employee has not committed any misrepresentation or fraud and the excess payment is the result of an error attributable to the employer. The protection is particularly applicable to Class-III and Class-IV employees and in cases where recovery is sought after a long lapse of time. The present petitioners squarely fall within the protective principles laid down by the Supreme Court. The higher pay scale was granted by departmental orders, no misrepresentation is attributable to the petitioners, and the recovery is sought after 12–13 years. Such recovery would be harsh, inequitable and legally unsustainable. 11. This Court is therefore of the considered opinion that the impugned recovery orders are arbitrary, contrary to settled law, and violative of principles of fairness in administrative action. The petitioners have arranged their affairs on the basis of salary 14 legitimately paid to them for years, and compelling them to refund a substantial amount at this stage would result in grave hardship and injustice. Accordingly, the impugned recovery order dated 22.11.2023 passed against each of the petitioners is quashed and set aside. 12. Consequently, the writ petitions are allowed. 13. However, if any amount has already been recovered from the petitioners pursuant to the impugned orders, it is directed that the same shall be refunded to them within a reasonable period. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha