1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8282 of 2023 1 - Ku. Sabina Praveen Khan D/o Inayat Ulla Khan Aged About 52 Years Head Master Primary School At Ghonha, Block Bodla Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) 2 - Ishwari Prasad Pater (Died And Deleted) Through Lrs. As Per Honble Court Order Dated- 21-08-2024. 2.1 - Smt. Ratan Bai Patel W/o Late Ishwari Prasad Patel, Aged About 59 Years R/o Minminiya Maidan, Bodla, District Kabeerdham (C.G.) 3 - Suneel Kumar Dubey S/o Shri S.S. Dubey Aged About 53 Years Head Master Primary School At Chhapari, Block Bodla Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) 4 - Smt. Sunita Sharma W/o Shri Rakesh Sharma Aged About 59 Years Head Master Primary School At Lalpurkala, Block Bodla Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Directorate Of Public Education, Chhattisgarh, Indrawati 2 Bhawan, Block-3, First Floor, New Raipur, Ata Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Director Chhattisgarh State Audit Block -I, Second Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 4 - The Deputy Director Chhattisgarh State Audit Bhavani Nagar, Basantpur, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 5 - District Education Officer Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) 6 - Block Education Officer Block Bodla, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 8274 of 2023 1 - Smt. Lata Talware W/o Shri Bahadur Talware Aged About 53 Years Head Master, Tribal Girls, Ashram, Bokarkhar, Block - Bodla, Kawardha, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director Chhattisgarh State Audit (Old Name - Local Fund And Audit), Block-I, Second Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Deputy Director Chhattisgarh State Audit Bhavani Nagar, Basantpur, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 4 - Disrict Education Officer Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) 3 5 - Block Education Officer Block - Bodla, Kawardha, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate For State Mr. Devesh G. Kela, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 18.08.2025 1. Since common question is involved in all the writ petitions, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. The subject matter of the case is that the petitioners, who were initially appointed as Shiksha Karmis in 1998-99 under Janpad Panchayat Bodla, were granted Kramonnati pay scale after completion of 10 years of service in 2008-09, as per the State Government’s policy then in force, and their pay fixation was duly approved without objection. Later, their services were merged into the School Education Department in 2018, and they were governed by the School Education Service Rules, 2019, receiving promotion as Head Masters in 2022. However, after certain employees who were denied Kramonnati benefits post 30.04.2013 raised objections, the respondent authorities reopened the service books of the petitioners and, vide instructions dated 26.05.2023, recommended reducing their pay scale by objecting to the Kramonnati pay scale already granted since 2011. The petitioners contend that such action is arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the State 4 Government’s own clarification, and violative of earlier High Court decisions in identical matters. The dispute therefore concerns the illegal reduction/withdrawal of the Kramonnati pay scale already granted to the petitioners. 3. The reliefs prayed for by the petitioners in both the writ petitions are same and one with certain variations, however, in order to adjudicate these petitions, WPS No. 8282 of 2023 (Ku. Sabeena Parveen Khan & Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) has been taken as lead petition for deciding the issues involved in these cases. 4. The petitioners have prayed for following reliefs in the petition:- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus, and quash, set aside the instruction dated 26.05.2023 (Annexure-P/13) issued by the respondent No.4 by declaring the same is bad in law. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to declare that the petitioners are entitled for protection of their Kramonnati pay scale in according to the rules of law & further entitled for all the consequential benefits. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other suitable, appropriate relief/relief's, which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case along with the cost 5 10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to hold that, all the subsequent act and action along with the recovery letter dated 20.10.2023 issued by the Block Education is bad in the eyes of law and same is deserve to set-aside/quash as such not sustainable under the law.” 5. Brief facts for disposal of all the writ petitions, are that, the petitioners were initially appointed as Shiksha Karmis in 1998-99 under Janpad Panchayat Bodla, successfully completed probation, and were regularized in 2002. Since no promotional avenues were available, the State Government, vide order dated 02.11.2011, introduced the policy of granting Kramonnati pay scale on completion of 10 years of service, under which the petitioners were sanctioned and granted the said benefit from 01.11.2011, duly verified and approved by the competent authorities. Subsequently, the State revised the pay scales of Shiksha Karmis at par with teachers of the Education Department and clarified through circulars that those completing 10 years before 30.04.2013 would continue to be entitled to Kramonnati. In 2018, the services of the petitioners were merged into the School Education Department, and under the 2019 Rules they were promoted as Head Masters in 2022, with their pay duly protected as per Fundamental Rules. However, after objections raised by another group of employees, the service books of the petitioners were re-examined, and the respondent no.4, ignoring government clarifications, departmental instructions, and earlier High Court 6 rulings in identical cases, arbitrarily raised objections and by letter dated 26.05.2023 reduced their pay scale to Rs. 5200-20200 with grade pay Rs.2400/-, thereby threatening to reduce their salary by nearly Rs.20,000/-. The petitioners, whose pay fixation has been lawful and protected, contend that such unilateral reduction is arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, violative of their vested rights, and contrary to settled judicial precedents, hence, the writ petitions have been filed by the respective petitioners. 6. Learned counsel for the respective petitioners submits that the impugned action of respondent no.4 in objecting to and recommending reduction of the petitioners’ Kramonnati pay scale, which has been granted since 2011 and duly protected under the Fundamental Rules, is wholly arbitrary, discriminatory, and without jurisdiction, as respondent no.4 has ignored the clarifications issued by the State Government, the instructions of respondent no.3, and binding orders of the Hon’ble High Court in identical matters. He submits that such reduction amounts to virtual demotion and deprives the petitioners of their vested rights without affording them any opportunity of hearing, thereby violating the principles of natural justice, fundamental rights, and constitutional protections. It is stated that it is a settled law that when a power is conferred to be exercised in a particular manner, it must be exercised only in that manner and not otherwise, hence the arbitrary and mala fide exercise of power by respondent no.4 in reducing the petitioners’ pay scale is unsustainable in law and 7 deserves to be quashed. Reliance has been placed in the judgments rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of State of Punjab and Others etc. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. reported in 2015 (4) SCC 334 and Thomas Denial Vs. State of Kerela reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 525 as well as Jagdish Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1909, to buttress his contention. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and would submit that the recommendation to reduce the petitioners’ Kramonnati pay scale is neither arbitrary nor unlawful, but a necessary corrective measure taken in accordance with applicable rules, government clarifications, and instructions of respondent no. 3. The pay scale granted since 2011 was irregularly extended without proper procedure, and the respondents have acted within their jurisdiction to rectify this. It is stated that the petitioners were afforded adequate opportunity to present their case, and the principles of natural justice have been complied with. Further, the orders of the Hon’ble High Court relied upon by the petitioners are factually distinguishable and do not bind the present case. He submits that the reduction does not amount to demotion or deprivation of vested rights but is a lawful exercise of regulatory authority, and therefore, the impugned order does not require any interference by this Court. 8 8. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of the record, admittedly the petitioners were working under the respondent authorities and they were not pay-fixation authority as per rules applicable to them, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners have committed any fraudulent act or was involved in pay fixation and there was no fault on the part of the petitioners. 9. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to extract Clause-7 of the clarification, which was issued by the State Government, for easy reference :- “(7) The Teachers (Panchayat) Cadre who are given promotion in pay scale after completing ten years of service will also be given revised pay scale of the category, in which they are working and will be given benefit of weightage as above.” 10. Given the aforesaid facts, it would be relevant at this juncture to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Pasad Singh (supra) wherein it has been very emphatically held by the Supreme Court that any decision taken by the State Government to reduce an employee’s pay scale and recover the excess amount cannot be applied retrospectively and that too after a long time gap. Relevant portion of the judgment are reproduced below for ready reference :- 9 “21. We firmly believe that any decision taken by the State Government to reduce an employee’s pay scale and recover the excess amount cannot be applied retrospectively and that too after a long time gap. In the case of Syed Abdul Qadir and Others v. State of Bihar and Others, (2009) 3 SCC 475, this Court held that when the excess unauthorised payment is detected within a short period of time, it would be open for the employer to recover the same. Conversely, if the payment had been made for a long duration of time, it would be iniquitous to make any recovery. The relevant paras of the Syed Abdul Qadir (supra) are extracted hereinbelow: - “57. This Court, in a catena of decisions, has granted relief against recovery of excess payment of emoluments/ allowances if (a) the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, and (b) if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous. 58. The relief against recovery is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, 10 exercising judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is ordered. But, if in a given case, it is proved that the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where the error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, courts may, on the facts and circumstances of any particular case, order for recovery of the amount paid in excess. 59. Undoubtedly, the excess amount that has been paid to the appellant teachers was not because of any misrepresentation or fraud on their part and the appellants also had no knowledge that the amount that was being paid to them was more than what they were entitled to. It would not be out of place to mention here that the Finance Department had, in its counter- affidavit, admitted that it was a bona fide mistake on their part. The excess payment made was the result of wrong interpretation of the Rule that was applicable to them, for which the appellants cannot be held responsible. Rather, the whole confusion was because of inaction, negligence and carelessness of the officials concerned 11 of the Government of Bihar. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant teachers submitted that majority of the beneficiaries have either retired or are on the verge of it. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case at hand and to avoid any hardship to the appellant teachers, we are of the view that no recovery of the amount that has been paid in excess to the appellant teachers should be made.” (emphasis supplied) 22. Similarly, this Court in ITC Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2011) 7 SCC 493, held as under: - “108. We may give an example from service jurisprudence, where a principle of equity is frequently invoked to give relief to an employee in somewhat similar circumstances. Where the pay or other emoluments due to an employee is determined and paid by the employer, and subsequently the employer finds, (usually on audit verification) that on account of wrong understanding of the applicable rules by the officers implementing the rules, excess payment is made, courts have recognised the need to give limited relief in regard to recovery of past excess payments, to reduce hardship to the innocent 12 employees, who benefited from such wrong interpretation.” (emphasis supplied) 23. In the case of State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others, (2015) 4 SCC 334, this Court 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 hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service). (ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from the employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five 13 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.” (emphasis supplied) 24. Recently, this Court in Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 536, held that the State cannot recover excess amount paid to the ex- employee after the delay of 10 years.” 11. The clarification of the State Government dated 22.01.2014 to be specific, the highlighted portion (supra) is amenable to the interpretation that the Teachers (Panchayat) who are given promotion in pay scale after completing ten years of service will also be given revised pay scale of the category, in which they are working and will be given benefit of weightage. As a 14 consequence, the respondent authorities while issuing the recovery orders in favour of the petitioners clearly misinterpreted and misapplied the said clarification to the detriment of the petitioners. 12. Taking into consideration the facts discussed above and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Jagdish Prasad Singh (supra), in the opinion of this Court, the recovery orders issued by the respondent authorities are not sustainable in the eyes of law, as such, the recovery orders are deserves to quashed. In addition thereto, I am of the view that any step of reduction in the pay scale and recovery from a Government employee would tantamount to a punitive action because the same has drastic civil as well as evil consequences. The impugned action directing reduction of pay scale and recovery of the excess amount is grossly arbitrary and illegal and also suffers from the vice of non-adherence to the principles of natural justice and hence, the same cannot be sustained. 13. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders of recovery are hereby set-aside/quashed. The respondents are directed to consider and decide the claim of each of the petitioners in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders in this regard after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Pending application(s), if any shall stand disposed of. 15 14. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed. There shall be no order as to cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha