1 2025:CGHC:55725 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4901 of 2015 1 - Sanat Kumar Shukla S/o Late Ramkishore Shukla, Aged About 63 Years Retired Naib Tahsildar, R/o East Side Of Housing Board Colony, Near S.B.I. Main Branch, P.S. City Kotwali, Sidhi, District Sidhi Madhya Pradesh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Revenue And Natural Diaster, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector, Koriya, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Additional Collector, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Deputy Collector, Koriya, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Deputy Election Officer, Koriya, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. F.S. Khare, Adv. For State : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 14.11.2025 1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the orders dated 10.06.2012 (Annexure-P/1), 22.06.2015 (Annexure-P/2) and 24.06.2015 (Annexure-P/3) passed by the respondent authorities. HEERA LAL SAHU Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.11.18 13:45:30 +0530 2 2. The brief facts of the case are that at the relevant time, the petitioner was working as a Tahsildar and was posted in Baikunthpur (C.G.). On 31.01.2012, the petitioner was assigned the work of sending the ballot units from Baikunthpur, C.G., to Bareli, U.P., for which the petitioner was given an advance of Rs. 70,000/- and further expenditure incurred was reimbursed by Collector Bareli, which amounted to Rs. 1,31,995/-, and the total expenditure incurred was Rs. 2,01,995/-. After that, on 31.07.2012, the petitioner was retired. On 05.07.2013, respondent No. 3 directed the petitioner to submit the expense vouchers for the advance amounting to Rs. 70,000/-, which the petitioner submitted in the office immediately. After the submission of the vouchers, no correspondence was made in this matter with the petitioner, and all of a sudden, on 25.08.2014 (Annexure-P/4), respondent No. 2 passed an order mentioning that only Rs. 89,216/- had been approved. Respondent No. 2 has further directed the petitioner to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 1,12,779/- in the election office, Koriya, within a period of seven days; otherwise, the amount shall be deducted from the petitioner's retirement dues. 3. Further, the case of the petitioner is that against the order dated 25.08.2014, the petitioner had preferred a WPS No. 4847/2014 before this Court, which has been disposed of vide order dated 15.09.2014 (Annexure-P/5) with a direction to respondent No. 3 to verify the vouchers again submitted by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. This Court had further directed that the petitioner shall appear before the Additional Collector, Koriya, within a period of 15 days from today with a copy of this order, and no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner till verification. Thereafter, when nothing was done then the petitioner filed a contempt case (C) No. 104/2015 before this Court which has been disposed of by this Court vide order dated 04.03.2015 (Annexure-P/6) directing the petitioner to file additional representation within ten days from date of order before the respondent/Additional Collector, Koriya and in turn the respondent shall consider and decide the same as directed by this Court on 3 15.09.2014, but respondent No. 3 did not comply with the direction given by this Court. 4. Furthermore, the case of the petitioner is that in the mean time the respondents sanctioned the acquired leave amount of Rs. 1,37,566/- and out of this Rs. 70,000/- has been deducted and adjusted it, against recovery of Rs. 1,12,779/-, without comply with the earlier order dated 15.09.2014 passed in WPS No. 4847/2014 and order dated 04.03.2015 passed in Contempt Case (C) No. 104/2015 passed by this Court. Furthermore, the case is that the calculation of the respondent No. 4 about the total acquired leave is wrong, because, as per the chart annexed with the order, it is seen that the total leave days are 150 from the date of appointment to the year 1987, and the amount of the same was disbursed to the petitioner. Now the leave days from 10.03.1987 to the date of retirement i.e. 31.07.2012, are about 175 days. The total days of leave is 325 days. Respondent No. 4 has wrongly deducted acquired leave days 195 in place of 175, due to which the petitioner has suffered a loss of 47,615/-. The petitioner had made a representation on 26.10.2015 (Annexure-A/7) to respondent No. 2, but nothing has been done. Hence, the petitioner filed this petition for the following reliefs:- “10.1. That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the writ petition and be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 10.06.2015 (P/1) and be pleased to direct the respondent No. 4 to pay actual leave amount after correct calculation of acquired leave days. 10.2. That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned orders dated 22.06.2015 (P/2) and 24.06.2015 (P/3) and be pleased to direct the respondent No. 2 to refund the deducted/adjusted amount Rs. 70,000/- to the petitioner forthwith with interest. 10.3. That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be call for the records for its kind perusal which relates to subject matter of this petition. 10.4. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 4 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities have violated the orders passed by the Hon’ble Court on 15.09.2014 and 04.03.2015 while passing the impugned orders. The respondents should have complied with the earlier orders passed by this Court, but in place of compliance, the respondents have ignored the same, and they have illegally recovered the amount. Respondent No. 4 has committed a grave error while calculating the acquired leave days, due to which the petitioner has suffered a loss of Rs. 47,615/-. He also submits that the arbitrary action of the respondent authorities is illegal and unconstitutional because they have not provided an opportunity of hearing, and also have not complied with the orders passed by this Court. 6. Learned counsel for respondents submits that there is no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner, and the petition also does not contain any substantial ground warranting interference with the impugned orders and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Looking to the records, it is clear that on 10.06.2015 (Annexure- P/1), the Collector Koriya, has calculated the leave enchantments of the petitioner for 130 days amounting to Rs. 1,37,566.00/- whereas the petitioner had submitted a representation dated 26.10.2015 in this regard stating therein that he had entitled to get leave enchantments for 175 days which is pending before the Collector Koriya, Bikunthpur (C.G.). It is also clear that on 22.06.2015 (Annexure-P/2) a order has been passed to deduct an amount of Rs. 70,000/- from leave enchantments without verification of vouchers whereas on 15.09.2014, this Court was directed in WPS No. 4847/2014 to the Additional Collector, Koriya to get verified the vouchers submitted by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy that order but without verification of the same the amount has been deducted as per Annexure-P/3. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the 5 Collector Koriya, Biakunthpur (C.G.) is directed that the representation dated 26.10.2015 of the petitioner shall be decided as per law within a period of 60 days from the receipt of a copy of this order. Further, concerned authorities are directed that after due verification of the vouchers as per the order of this Court dated 15.09.2014 in WPS No. 4847/2014 shall pass an appropriate order of recovery as per law. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to challenge the same, and also would be at liberty to challenge the deduction of Rs. 70,000/-. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE H.L. Sahu