-1- 2025:CGHC:29334 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5087 of 2018 Bhupal Ram Matshyapal S/o S/o Late Shri Sonau Ram Matshyapal Aged About 60 Years Occupation- Lecturer, R/o Quarter No. A/63, Irrigation Colony, Rudri, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Of Public Instructions, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - District Education Officer, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 4 - Joint Director, Treasury Account And Pension, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Likesh Kumar, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Renu Kochar, Advocate For State : Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Additional Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- 01.07.2025 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records relating to the petitioner case for grant of two advance increment for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court 10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ in the nature of certiorari and quash order of demand of recovery of the two advance increment Annexure P/1. 10.3 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents to pay two advance Increment from the date when petitioner acquired qualification of D.E.D. further respondents maybe directed to repay the amount which has been recovered with intrest. 10.4 That this Hon'ble court may be further pleased to pass any other consequential and other orders/ writs which this Hon'ble court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, who was appointed as a Teacher, passed the D.Ed. examination from the M.P. Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal in the year 2001. Therefore, he was extended the benefit of two advance increments by the department. He would contend that the petitioner had taken prior permission from the department before undergoing D.Ed. training. It is also contended that the respondent authorities passed the order of recovery vide Annexure P/1, whereby the benefit of two advance increments was withdrawn and an order of recovery was also issued. He would submit that the order has been passed by the respondent authorities after -3- 16 years, and no opportunity of hearing was afforded. He has placed reliance on the judgment in State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer); (2015) 4 SCC 334. 3) On the other hand, Mr. Gupta would submit that the Hon’ble Division Bench in WA/130/2014 (State of Chhattisgarh and Others v. Tilak Ram Patel) has held that after the cut-off date of appointment i.e., 16.06.1993, the teachers who had passed B.Ed./D.Ed./BTI etc. would not be entitled to get the benefit of two advance increments. He would contend that the petitioner passed the D.Ed. examination after the cut-off date; therefore, he was not entitled to get two advance increments, and accordingly, the impugned order was passed. 4) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5) The petitioner passed D.Ed. in the year 2001, and the certificate was submitted to the department; the department extended the benefit of two advance increments. The benefit continued till 2018, and on 20.06.2018, an order was passed, whereby the benefit of two advance increments was withdrawn and recovery was proposed. The State, in its reply, has not stated that there was any misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner. 6) In the matter of Tilak Ram Patel (supra), though it is held that teachers who had passed B.Ed./D.Ed./BTI after 16.06.1993 would not be entitled to get benefit -4- of advance increments, it is nowhere held that an order of recovery can be issued. 7) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra) in para 18 held as under:– “18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: (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 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) In the present case, the benefit of two advance increments was extended to the petitioner in 2002. The department detected the mistake in the year 2018. The -5- petitioner is a Class-III employee; therefore, the order of recovery is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 9) In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra), since the petitioner is a Class-III employee and the excess payment was made continuously for over 16 years without any misrepresentation on his part, therefore, the recovery order passed by the department is impermissible in law. The petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of two advance increments as per the decision passed in the matter of Tilak Ram Patel (supra). Accordingly, the order impugned (Annexure P/1) is hereby set-aside. 10) In the result, the petition is allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim