2025:CGHC:30856 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5687 of 2017 1 - Sanat Kumar Lodhi S/o Late Himanchal Lodhi Aged About 37 Years R/o Abadi Para, Ward No. 54, Potiyakala, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh , District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh , District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Tahsildar, Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh , District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For State : Mr. Prateek Tiwari, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 07.07.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- REKHA SINGH Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH -2- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to hold the action of the respondent authorities as illegal where the amount of Rs.37,576/- was deducted from the total salary of Rs. 80,099/- for the period of October-2010 to May-2012 stating it to be the excess salary paid to the petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to refund/pay the amount of Rs.37,576/- which was recovered from the petitioner as a excess salary paid. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to pay interest of 18% towards principal amount of Rs.80,099/- which is a due salary for period of October-2010 to May- 2012, which was paid after deduction after a period of 6 years that too after having the order of this Hon'ble Court passed in WPS No.1533/2016, hence the respondents' directed to pay interest of 18% towards principal amount for the period of 6 years of delay. 10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deems fit and appropriate.” 2. Mr. Dhurandhar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that at the relevant time, in the year 2008-09, the petitioner was working as a daily rated driver under respondent No.4. He would further submit that order of recovery to the tune of Rs.37,576/- was passed on the ground that the petitioner was paid salary twice from April, 2008 to February, 2009 and the additional amount of Rs.8690/- was paid against the vehicle repair in the year 2008. He would contend that the said amount was deducted from the salary of the petitioner which was payable to him on 09.03.2017. He would further contend that the petitioner was a daily rated employee, there was no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner and the order of recovery was passed after 8 years. He would contend that no show-cause notice was issued by the respondents in this regard. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Dhurandhar. He would submit that the petitioner was paid salary for 10 months two times and a bill of Rs.8690/- was paid against the vehicle repair. He would further submit that the petitioner was aware of these facts and therefore, he never raised any objection. He would also submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner was a daily rated employee and due to the mistake of the department, he was paid salary from April, 2008 to February, 2009 twice and the bill of the vehicle repair to the tune of Rs.8690/- was also sanctioned. The amount of Rs.37,576/- was recovered from the account of the petitioner after the termination of services. 6. It is also not in dispute that no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner; no inquiry was conducted and no opportunity of hearing was provided. 7. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was a daily rated employee and the aforesaid amount was recovered after 8 years. 8. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, the order of recovery, if any, passed by the respondent authorities is hereby quashed. The respondent authorities are directed to refund the recovered amount of Rs. 37,576/- to the petitioner with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of recovery till the date of its -4- realization. 9. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha