1 2025:CGHC:10015 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4274 of 2018 1 - Mohan Lal Taram S/o Lakhan Lal Aged About 41 Years Presently Working As Assistant Teacher Panchayat At Government Primary School Bharritola - 36, Block Doundi, District Balod Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 2 - Vishnu Singh Sahu S/o Late Ajit Singh Sahu Aged About 41 Years Presently Working As Assistant Teacher Panchayat At Government Primary School Salhe - 2 , Block Doundi, District Balod Chhattisgarh. 3 - Lalit Kumar Dewangan S/o Makhan Lal Aged About 47 Years Presently Working As Assistant Teacher Panchayat At Government Girls Primary School Dhotimtola , Block Doundi, District Balod Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 4 - Bhushan Lal Kunjam S/o Rakhan Lal Aged About 43 Years Presently Working As Assistant Teacher Panchayat At Government Primary School Magardah Block Doundi, District Balod Chhattisgarh. 5 - Anand Ram Sarpa S/o Gulchand Aged About 47 Years Presently Working As Assistant Teacher Panchayat At Government Primary School Salhe , Block Doundi, District Balod Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 6 - Komal Singh Gavarna S/o Jagdish Ram Aged About 46 Years Presently Working As Assistant Teacher Panchayat At Government Primary School Tuadand , Block Doundi, District Balod Chhattisgarh. 7 - Baldev Singh Sahu S/o Derha Ram Sahu Aged About 45 Years Presently Working As Teacher Panchayat At Government Middle School Kondekasa , Block Doundi, District Balod Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development Mantralaya Police Station Rakhi, Tahsil Aarang, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. Digitally signed by SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- 2 - Commissioner - Cum - Director , Directorate Of Panchayat Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Executive Officer , Zila Panchayat Balod District Balod Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 4 - Additional Chief Executive Officer , ( Education ) Doundi, District Balod Chhattisgarh. 5 - Block Education Officer Doundi, District Balod Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Om Prakash Sahu, Advocate. For State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 28.02.2025 1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the order dated 22.05.2018 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent authorities. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to continuing the benefit of pay scale already granted to the petitioner. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were initially appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) and Teacher (Panchayat) at Government Primary School, Balod, District Balod (C.G.). He would further submit that the petitioners are receiving the benefit of salary according to the Rules and Circulars issued by the State 3 Government. He would contend that on 22.05.2018, an order was issued by respondents No. 4 & 5 with regard to recovery of the excess amount paid to them on account of wrong fixation of salary from the year 2012-13. He would further contend that the order dated 22.05.2018 was issued pursuant to the objection raised by the Deputy Director Local Fund Audit, Rajnandgaon. It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners by the respondent authorities before taking such a harsh decision. He would state that the petitioners are Class-III employees and they have been receiving the benefit of excess salaries since the year 2012-13, whereas, the order was issued on 22.05.2018 five years after the date of wrong fixation of salary. He would also contend that the decision taken by respondents No. 4 & 5 is contrary to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, 2015 AIR SCW 501. 3. On the other hand, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners. He would submit that respondents No.4 & 5 have issued a show-cause notice to the petitioners. He would further submit that the petitioners instead of filing a reply to the show-cause notice, have approached this Court by filing this petition. He would contend that though there is a separate cause of action for each petitioner but they have filed a joint petition which is not maintainable. He would lastly submit that the petitioners may file a reply to the show-cause notice and the -4- authorities concerned would decide the issue strictly in accordance with law. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents. 5. Admittedly, the petitioners were appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) and Teacher (Panchayat) at Government Primary School, Balod, District Balod (C.G.). The order dated 22.05.2018 was issued by respondents No.4 & 5 with regard to the recovery of the excess amount paid to them on account of the wrong fixation of salary from the year 2012-13. The petitioners have been directed to submit their response/consent. It appears that the opportunity of hearing has not been afforded to the petitioners and directly, a decision has been taken by respondents No.4 & 5. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are Class-III employees and the decision was taken by respondents No. 4 & 5 after five years from the date of wrong fixation of salary. 7. In the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- “(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 5 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. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, the present petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners to file a detailed representation(s) before respondents No.4 & 5 in response to the order dated 22.05.2018 and in turn, the authorities concerned are directed to decide the representation(s) in an objective manner strictly in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra). It is expected that the authority concerned shall decide the representation(s) made by the petitioners preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. The interim order dated 03.07.2018 granted in favour of the petitioners shall remain effective for a period of 60 days. 10.With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi