1 2025:CGHC:2099 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1429 of 2017 Vishnu Prasad Dhakate, S/o. Sundarlal Ji Dhakate, Aged About 61 Years, R/o. Lokanshi Niwas, Sunder Nagar, Daganiya, Vivekanand School Raod, Ward No. 59, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Industries (Gramodyog) Handloom Sector, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director, Gramodyog, Handloom Sector, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate. For Respondents : Dr. Surendra Kumar Dewangan, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2025.01.15 10:37:37 +0530 2 13.01.2025 1. The petitioner herein, by this writ petition, questioned the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned order dated 14.09.2016 to the extent that while reverting to the post of Inspector Handloom, it has been directed to recover all the financial benefits granted to him on the post of Senior Inspector, Handloom & Assistant Director, Handloom. 2. This is the second round of litigation. The petitioner was firstly terminated by the order dated 29.12.2009 on the basis of the decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner has secured the appointment on the basis of the caste certificate on the post of Inspector, Handloom and promoted to the post of Senior Inspector & Assistant Director, Handloom, which the petitioner questioned in WPS No.12/2010, which was allowed in part and it has been held that the initial appointment of the petitioner was not made against the reserved category, but he has been promoted on the basis of caste certificate, therefore, the termination order of the petitioner was set aside. However, for the promotion orders, the Single Bench has held that treating the petitioner as scheduled tribe, he has been promoted, which may be quashed. The same was 3 challenged by the petitioner in Division Bench and that order was modified. Thereafter, the petitioner was subjected to charge sheet and the impugned order was passed on 14.09.2016, by which the petitioner has been demoted from the post of Assistant Director Handloom to the post of Inspector and it has been directed to recover all the financial benefits granted to the petitioner on account of his promotion to the post of Senior Inspector & Assistant Director. 3. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has already retired from service on 30.05.2017 and the financial benefits, which was granted to him on the post of Senior Inspector & Assistant Director Handloom may not be taken away as he has worked on the said posts. In this regard, he would rely the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Man Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh1 and Bhubaneshwar Development Authority v. Madhumita Das & Ors.2 4. Dr. Surendra Kumar Dewangan, learned State counsel, would support the impugned order passed by the State authorities and submit that the petition has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. 1 2022 SCC Online SC 726 2 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 644 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner has been reverted by the order dated 14.09.2016, pursuant to departmental enquiry conducted by the State and, however, he has retired on the post of Inspector Handloom. So far as financial benefits on the promotional posts, it has been directed to be recovered. In this regard, the decision of the Supreme Court may be noticed herein. 7. In the matter of Man Singh (supra), it has been held in paragraphs 4, 5, 6 & 7 as under :- "4. The order dated 24.12.1998 also records that the money be recovered from the appellant which has been paid to him, as a result of his irregular appointment for the post of Principal. 5. We find that the High Court has failed to consider the fact that even if the appointment was irregular, the appellant had discharged the duties and in lieu of duties, he had to be paid. The State cannot take any work from any employee without payment of any salary. 6. Consequently, we find the order passed by the State Government dated 24.12.1998 is wholly illegal and untenable. The High Court should have been appreciated the facts in the proper perspective and should have set aside the same. It appears that after the order was passed on 5 24.12.1998, the appellant was not working on the post of Principal. 7. Therefore, we set aside the order dated 24.12.1998 and direct the respondents to treat appellant as retired on the date of the order i.e. 24.12.1998 and to pay pensionary benefits, if any, due to him for the services rendered." 8. Similarly, in Bhubaneshwar Development Authority (supra), the Supreme Court in para 24 has held as under : "24. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we order and direct that no recovery shall be made from the first respondent of the salary which was paid to her for the period for which she was actually worked." 9. In view of the decisions rendered in Man Singh (supra) and Bhubaneshwar Development Authority (supra), the second part of the order directing the recovery of financial benefits, which has been granted to the petitioner during promotion on the post of Senior Inspector & Assistant Director Handloom is hereby set aside as he has actually worked on the two promoted post. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the above-extent. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ashok