1 2025:CGHC:46441 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9499 of 2025 1 - Derha Ram Khute S/o Shri Shyam Lal Khute, Aged About 51 Years Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Government Middle School, Todgaon, Block- Arang, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Education, Mahanadi Bhawan New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director, Directorate of Public Instructions, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Collector, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 - The District Education Officer, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 5 - The Block Education Officer, Block- Arang, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Palash Agrawal, Advocate. For State/Respondents : Mr. Arvind Dubey, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas, J. Order on Board 11-09-2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging memo dated 09- 07-2025 passed by respondent No.5 by which recovery of Rs. 7,91,498/- has been ordered as excess payment. 2. The brief facts as reflected from the petition, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-II in Panchayat. Thereafter, his Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2025.09.15 12:14:55 +0530 2 services have been absorbed in the School Education Department as Teacher (L.B.) on 31-08-2018. Thereafter, the respondents have issued the impugned order alleging that from December, 2014 till June, 2025 there is excess payment made to the petitioner in the tune of Rs. 7,91,498/-. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that without providing opportunity of hearing the same amount has been assessed, therefore, he would pray for quashing of the impugned memo/order. He would further submit that the petitioner has already made representation before the authority concerned, which is still pending. He would pray for allowing the petition. 4. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents opposing the submission submits that after deliberation and considering the material available with the respondents they have quantified the amount which is neither unreasonable nor suffers from any perversity and the respondent by the impugned recovery notice/order has directed the petitioner to deposit the amount of Rs.30,000/- to Rs.35,000/- per month. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 6. Considering the fact that petitioner has already preferred a representation and also considering that prima facie the amount which has been ordered to be recovered is on higher pedestal, therefore, it is directed that the respondents shall decide the representation and thereafter, they will pass a fresh order and if it is found that the amount is liable to be recovered, then the petitioner may be directed for payment in monthly installments which shall not be more than 10,000/- per month taking into consideration the remaining length of his service as his retirement is due after 11 years. 7. With these observations and directions the present writ petition is disposed of. It is made clear that without deciding the representation recovery shall not 3 be made and it is further directed that the respondents shall complete this proceeding within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of this order. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Aadil