1 2025:CGHC:53996 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3952 of 2023 1 - Smt. Nameeta Biswas Wife Of Tapas Kumar Biswas, Aged About 60 Years Posted At Primary Health Centre, Chakarbhata, Bilaspur, R/o. Mig-01, D/40 Abhilasha Parisar, Tifra Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2 - Rameshwar Prasad Sahu, Son Of Gagannath Prasad Sahu, Aged About 47 Years Posted At Primary Health Centre, Lingiyadih, Bilaspur, R/o. Geetanjlicity Phase -Ii, Bahatarai Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Joint Director, Health Services, Bilaspur, Division, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief Health And Medical Officer, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - Block Medical Officer, Bilha, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Anukul Biswas, Advocate For State : Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Panel Lawyer (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge) Order on Board 04/11/2025 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioners are challenging the impugned order of recovery dated 25.05.2023, issued by respondent No. 4/Block Medical Officer, Bilha, Bilaspur, whereby the petitioners Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 have been informed that the travelling allowance payments made for the years 2015-16 and 2016-17 have been declared irregular and are sought to be recovered from their salaries from the ensuing month. The petitioners, therefore, seek appropriate directions from this Court to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 25.05.2023 and restrain the respondents from effecting the proposed recovery seeking following reliefs : 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/order/direction and direct the respondent authorities to quash/set-aside the impugned order of recovery dated 25.05.2023 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondent No.4. 10.2 That, any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioners are Government servants and are posted under the Health & Family Welfare Department, serving under the administrative control of respondent No.4/Block Medical Officer, Bilha, District Bilaspur (C.G.). The petitioner No.1 is posted as Health Supervisor (Female) at the Primary Health Centre, Chakarbhatha, Bilaspur, whereas the petitioner No.2 is posted as Pharmacist Grade-II at the Primary Health Centre, Lingiyadih, Bilaspur. Both the petitioners have been discharging their duties diligently and with utmost dedication. In the year 2015-2016, the petitioners were assigned to field duties by respondent No.4, which required them to travel extensively across various villages under their jurisdiction. The petitioners performed these duties conscientiously and 3 maintained accurate daily diaries and tour records documenting their movements and activities during the field visits. Upon completion of the field assignments, the petitioners submitted claims for travelling allowance for the work undertaken during that period. All the relevant documents and claims were duly examined by respondent No.4, who thereafter forwarded the TA bills to the competent authorities for payment. Before releasing the payments, the District Treasury Officer meticulously verified all the supporting documents along with the TA bills, and only thereafter the petitioners were duly paid the travelling allowance. After a period of approximately five to six years from the above-mentioned payment, the respondent No.4, without any prior notice or reasonable justification, issued the impugned recovery order dated 25.05.2023. In the said order, the petitioners have been informed that the travelling allowance payments made for the years 2015-16 and 2016-17 have been declared irregular, and that the amount so paid shall be recovered from the petitioners’ salaries starting from the next month. The impugned order came as a sudden and arbitrary action and has caused grave hardship and financial prejudice to the petitioners. In response to the aforesaid impugned order, petitioner No.1 filed an appeal before respondent No.2 on 09.06.2023, challenging the legality and validity of the recovery order dated 25.05.2023. Despite the submission of the appeal, no action has been taken by the respondents, and the appeal continues to remain pending for consideration. The petitioners have been compelled to approach this Court by way of the present writ petition, seeking appropriate relief 4 against the arbitrary and illegal recovery order passed by respondent No.4. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the impugned order of recovery dated 25.05.2023, issued by respondent No.4/Block Medical Officer, Bilha, Bilaspur, is wholly arbitrary, illegal, and unsustainable in law. The learned counsel for petitioners submit that the said order is liable to be quashed and set aside by this Court, being contrary to established principles of law and settled administrative practice. The petitioners were neither issued any show-cause notice nor provided an opportunity to file any reply or explanation before the issuance of the impugned recovery order. The impugned order, therefore, is wholly ex-parte, and in total violation of the principles of natural justice, which mandate that a person cannot be condemned without being heard. The travelling allowance claimed by the petitioners for the years 2015-16 and 2016-17 was duly sanctioned by the competent authority, who is a Gazetted Officer, after verification of all supporting documents and tour records. Subsequently, the District Treasury Officer, who is an independent financial authority, also thoroughly examined the relevant TA bills and records before releasing the payment to the petitioners. Therefore, the impugned recovery order is arbitrary, illegal, and unsupportable, as it seeks to recover amounts which were already lawfully sanctioned and disbursed after due process. In the year 2018, respondent No.2 sought clarification from respondent No.4 regarding the eligibility of the travelling allowance payments made to employees, including the petitioners. In response, respondent No.4 submitted detailed clarifications vide letters dated 5 04.07.2018 and 14.11.2018, affirming that all employees, including the petitioners, who were paid travelling allowance during the said period, were regular employees and fully eligible to receive such payments. This clearly demonstrates that the respondents themselves had earlier confirmed the eligibility of the petitioners for the said payments, thereby rendering the impugned recovery order patently unjustified. The petitioners are Government servants of Grade-III cadre. As per the rules of the State of Chhattisgarh, any payment made to employees of Grade-III and IV is not recoverable after the stipulated time period unless there is clear evidence of fraud or misrepresentation. In the present case, there is no allegation or finding of fraud or misrepresentation against the petitioners. Hence, the impugned order is in direct violation of the statutory provisions and established rules governing recoveries of payments. The learned counsel for petitioners relies upon a similar matter, namely Krishna Kumar Dewangan vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others passed in W.P.S. No.1989 of 2021 vide order dated 08.06.2021, this Court had considered analogous facts and allowed the grievance of the petitioner by quashing the recovery order. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the principles enunciated in the said judgment squarely apply to the facts of the present case and strongly support the quashing of the impugned recovery order. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that the petitioners’ claim that the impugned recovery order dated 25.05.2023 is illegal is wholly misconceived. The recovery has been issued in accordance with the 6 provisions of the applicable rules and administrative instructions governing irregular or excess payments made to employees. The travelling allowance payments made to the petitioners for the years 2015-16 and 2016-17 were subsequently found to be irregular or ineligible due to technical discrepancies, and therefore, the respondents rightly initiated recovery to safeguard public funds. While it is true that show-cause notice or personal hearing was not issued before the recovery, the respondents acted under the legal powers conferred to rectify erroneous payments, which is a recognized exception in administrative law. The payments made earlier do not confer indefeasible rights on the petitioners where subsequent verification shows ineligibility. The reliance on prior letters dated 04.07.2018 and 14.11.2018 is misplaced as those clarifications did not conclusively bar recovery if discrepancies were later noticed. The petitioners are not entitled to quash the impugned recovery order merely on the ground of delay, as delay in detection does not extinguish the right of the State to recover funds wrongly disbursed. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable and the impugned recovery order is lawful, justified, and should be upheld. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the documents enclosed along with the petition. 6. Upon careful consideration, it is evident that the petitioners are Government servants of Grade-III cadre, discharging their duties under the Health & Family Welfare Department, posted under the administrative control of respondent No.4/Block Medical Officer, Bilha, 7 Bilaspur. The petitioners were assigned field duties during the years 2015-16 and 2016-17, during which they travelled extensively across various villages, maintaining accurate daily and tour records. Their claims for travelling allowance were duly examined, verified, and sanctioned by the competent authority, who is a Gazetted Officer. Thereafter, the District Treasury Officer, functioning as an independent financial authority, also scrutinized the relevant bills and records before releasing the payments to the petitioners. The process of verification and payment was conducted in accordance with the prescribed administrative procedure, and there is no evidence on record to suggest any irregularity or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioners. 7. The impugned recovery order dated 25.05.2023 was issued after a considerable lapse of time, almost seven to eight years after the payments were made. The petitioners were neither served with any show-cause notice nor provided an opportunity to submit a reply before the issuance of the recovery order. The ex-parte nature of the impugned order is, therefore, a clear violation of the principles of natural justice, which mandate that no person should be condemned or subjected to recovery of funds without being given an opportunity to be heard. It is further observed that in the year 2018, respondent No.2 sought clarification from respondent No.4 regarding the eligibility of the travelling allowance payments. Respondent No.4, through letters dated 04.07.2018 and 14.11.2018, specifically affirmed that all employees, including the petitioners, who had received travelling allowance during the period in question were regular employees and fully entitled to the 8 said payments. These communications demonstrate that the respondents themselves had previously confirmed the legitimacy of the payments, thereby undermining any claim of irregularity or ineligibility at a later stage. 8. The petitioners are of Grade-III cadre, and as per the rules, payments made to employees of Grade-III and IV are not ordinarily recoverable after a substantial period unless there is clear evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, or collusion. In the instant case, there is no material to indicate that the petitioners acted dishonestly, misrepresented facts, or sought to unduly benefit from the travelling allowance payments. The Court also takes note of the relevant precedent in Krishna Kumar Dewangan (supra), wherein a similar recovery order was quashed on the grounds that the petitioner had received payments lawfully and there was no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation. It was held as under : “7. A plain perusal of the aforementioned situations of the Supreme Court would clearly reveal that the case of the petitioner also falls within those situations enumerated therein. The petitioner is a retired employee. The order of recovery was issued subsequent to his retirement. The alleged excess payment was made two decades back. There is no mis- representation or fraud alleged against the petitioner. Thus, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the said judgment. 8. Under the circumstances, the impugned order of recovery dated 23.02.2021 (Annexure P/3) would not be sustainable and the same deserves to be and is accordingly set aside/quashed with consequence to follow.” 9 9. Considering the totality of the circumstances, including the negligible amount involved, the absence of any fraudulent intent or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioners, and the fact that the impugned order was issued in an arbitrary and ex-parte manner after a long delay, the Court is of the opinion that the impugned recovery order is not sustainable in law. The interest in recovery of State, though legitimate in general, cannot override principles of fairness and equity when the recipients acted in good faith and followed due process in claiming and receiving payments. 10. In view of the above, this Court finds that the petitioners have been subjected to undue hardship and financial prejudice by the impugned order of recovery dated 25.05.2023. Therefore, the impugned order of recovery is hereby quashed and set aside. No recovery of the amounts in question shall be made from the petitioners’ salaries. 11. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Shayna