-1- 2025:CGHC:36286 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2790 of 2021 Ashok Kumar Thakur, S/o Late Ramsundar Thakur, Aged About 57 Years Working On The Post of Excise Constable, R/o - District Excise office Bemetara, District - Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through - Secretary, Department of Excise, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Excise Commissioner, Aabkari Bhavan, Chhokara Nala, Labhandi, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - District Excise officer, Bemetara, District - Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate For State : Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 25.07.2025 1) The petitioner was working as Sales Man in the Wine Shop run by the erstwhile Government of Madhya Pradesh and in pursuance of policy decision, the Sales Men working in the Wine Shop were absorbed with the Excise Department. Accordingly, the petitioner was appointed as contigency paid employee for 89 -2- days vide order dated 18.05.1993 on the pay scale of Rs. 950-1530/-. In compliance of circular issued by the State Government from time to time, revised pay scales were granted to the petitioner vide order dated 31.10.2000. On 08.08.2008, services of the petitioner was regularized and the regular pay scale of Rs. 3050-75-3950-80-4590/- had given to the petitioner on the post of Excise Constable. Vide order dated 24.11.2018, the services of the petitioner have been continued from his initial appointment of the year 1993 and pay fixation was done. The respondent authorities were paying salary to the petitioner regularly as per pay fixation dated 24.11.2018. Thereafter, all of a sudden vide order dated 09.03.2021, the pay scale granted to the petitioner was withdrawn and recovery of excess payment amount paid to the petitioner was ordered. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the recovery order and reduction of pay were passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner which is in violation of principle of natural justice. The order passed by the authority reducing the pay and the order for recovery are subject to challenge before this Court in bunch of writ petitions (WPS No. 5549/2021 and other connected cases). The Coordinate Bench has disposed of the aforesaid writ petitions reserving liberty in favour of respondent authorities to take appropriate action, if so advised, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Against said order, Writ Appeal No. 174/2022 and other writ appeals were filed which were dismissed by Hon’ble Division Bench vide order -3- dated 20.06.2022. Hon’ble the Division Bench while dismissing the writ appeal has held as under:- “7. Having regard to the sequence of events as noted above, when, admittedly, writ petitioners suffered civil consequences and in effect, recovery is proposed to be made, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Single Judge that an opportunity ought to have been granted to the writ petitioners before making the adverse endorsement in the service book, cannot be faulted with. It is also noted that right of the appellants was reserved to take appropriate action in the matter in accordance with law after granting opportunity to the writ petitioners.” 3) Learned State counsel would not oppose the said legal proposition settled in above referred cases. 4) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, order of recovery of alleged excess amount paid to the petitioner and reduction of pay vide order dated 09.03.2021 (Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed reserving liberty in favour of the respondents that if they, so advised, may initiate proceedings in accordance with principle of natural justice giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing any order. 5) With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is allowed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge NADIM