1 2025:CGHC:26327 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3428 of 2017 1 - Pradeep Singh Thakur S/o Jhuran Singh Thakur Aged About 36 Years Occupation Block Program Manager At Community Health Center, Amoda, Police And Block Narharpur, District North Bastar, Kanker, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Health Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - Mission Director, National Health Mission Sector 27, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Medical And Health Officer, Raipur , District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh., District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri A.S. Rajput, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Lav Sharma, P.L. For Respondent No.2 : Shri C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 20.06.2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent No.2 deducted Rs.40,000/- from the bank account of the petitioner against excess salary paid to him, without affording any opportunity of hearing and without issuance of any notice. He SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- would further submit that since the amount has already been recovered, respondent No.2 may be directed to refund the same. 2. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that the excess payment was detected within two years from the date of such payment, and an explanation was also sought. He would submit that the amount has already been recovered and further submits that no additional recovery shall be made from the bank account of the petitioner in connection with the excess payment made during the year 2015-16. 3. Heard. 4. Taking into consideration the fact that the excess payment made to the petitioner was detected within two years and the petitioner has failed to place on record any document with regard to enhanced salary, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the matter. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. However, respondent No.2 shall not make any further recovery in relation to the excess payment made to the petitioner in the year 2015-2016. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi