1 2025:CGHC:5965-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 93 of 2025 Chhattisgarh State Dairy Cooperative Federation Ltd. Through Its Managing Director, Village Urla, Post B M Y Charoda, P.S. Charoda, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Respondent No. 3) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Gajanand Chandrakar S/o Late R. S. Chandrakar Aged About 62 Years R/o M I G-Ii 630, Sect-2, D.D. Nagar, P.O. Pt. Ravishankar University, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ........(Petitioner) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Krishi, Padhudhan Vikash, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. .................(Respondent No. 1) 3 - The Director Chhattisgarh State Audit (Old Name Local Fund And Audit), Block-1, Second Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ..............(Respondent No. 2) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Ms. Akanksha Jain alongwith Ms. Anuradha Jain, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy A.G. MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.02.04 11:16:39 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 03.02.2025 1. The present writ appeal is preferred assailing the order dated 26.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 1669/2022 (Gajanand Chandrakar vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others), whereby, the writ petition filed by the respondent No.1 herein was allowed and the recovery orders issued by the appellant herein have been set-aside with direction to refund the recovered amount to the writ-petitioner/respondent No.1 herein. 2. It has been pointed out by learned counsel, appearing for the appellant as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents that in an identical matter, this Bench had dismissed WA No. 51/2025 (Chhattisgarh State Dairy Co-Operative Federation Ltd. vs. Radhe Lal Sinha & Others) vide order dated 27.01.2025, observing as follows : “8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent No.1 herein observing that with regard to undertaking, in the absence of any statutory rule, it cannot be held that undertaking given by the writ petitioners would be binding over them. Respondent No. 3 / appellant herein has not placed on the record rules etc, to 3 establish that in the service rules or revision of pay rules, there is any provision with regard to undertaking, therefore, in the absence of rules, it cannot be held that the undertaking, if any, given by the writ petitioners would be binding upon them. Admittedly, the writ petitioners are employees of respondent No. 3 and they were holding Class-l to Class-IV posts under respondent No. 3. The decision was taken by the Board of Directors on 24.09.2011 and pursuant to that an order was passed by respondent No. 3 to extend the benefit of time scale pay to the writ petitioners and the said benefit was extended. Later on, the Board of Directors again passed a resolution to extend the benefit of second time scale pay in favour of the writ petitioners and again specific order was issued by respondent No. 3 / appellant herein on 25.06.2016. Thus, it cannot be said that there was any misrepresentation on the part of the writ petitioners to get the benefit of time scale pay. The department detected the mistake after a lapse of 12 years from 2011 and after the lapse of 07 years from 2016. 9. Learned Single Judge has further relief upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, (2015) 4 SCC 34 and has held that it is an admitted fact that the benefit was extended by the department itself. It is also not in dispute that all the writ petitioners have got retired from services. Lastly, taking into consideration the facts and law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the learned Single Judge concluded that the orders of recovery are not sustainable in the eyes of law, therefore, the recovery 4 orders issued by the respondent No. 3 / appellant herein was quashed. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent No.1 herein, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s)” They further submit that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WA No. 51/2025, this appeal may also be dismissed in the same terms. 3. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this appeal is identical to WA No. 51/2025, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in WA No. 51/2025. 4. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 27.01.2025 passed in WA No. 51/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet