1 2025:CGHC:48709 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 11202 of 2025 Yuvram Sahu S/o Manthir Sahu, Aged About 49 Years Working As Teacher (L.B.), Government Middle School, Sandi, Block-Arang, District-Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 4. The District Education Officer, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 5. The Block Education Officer, Arang, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rudra Pratap Dubey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 23/09/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition (s) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the impugned order dated 19.08.2025 issued by respondent No.5 by which excess amount has been ordered to be recovered in installment facility from his salary. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has already made a representation before the respondent No.5 for not recovering the amount from his salary as the petitioner has not received any excess SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.09.24 10:59:05 +0530 2 payment by misrepresentation and would pray for quashing of the impugned order. 3. The record of the case would demonstrate that the petitioner is in service and only 13 years are left for his retirement and he has made representation before the respondent No.5. From perusal of the representation, it is quite vivid that no factual foundation has been made by the petitioner, therefore, learned counsel would submit that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to make a fresh representation before respondent authorities mentioning all the factual matrix and legal submissions. 4. Permission is granted. 5. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty granted to the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to file a representation before concerned respondent authorities within a period of three weeks and on such representation being filed, the respondent authorities shall consider and decide the same, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the representation. 6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case and it is for the concerned respondent authority to consider and decide the case on merit, in accordance with law. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) JUDGE santosh