1 2025:CGHC:47215 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9991 of 2025 • Smt. Sunita Sahu W/o Shivkumar Sahu Aged About 48 Years Working As Teacher (L.B.), Govt. Middle School, Rasni, Block- Arang, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raiur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Secretary Government Of Chhattisgarh, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raiur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. The Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. The District Education Officer Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5. The Block Education Officer Arang, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Gaurav Singhal, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Shreyash Mehta, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas) Order on Boar d 15/09/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition (s) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the impugned order dated 9-7-2025 issued by respondent No.5 by which excess amount has been ordered to be recovered in installment facility from her salary. 2 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 her salary as the petitioner has not received any excess 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 12 years are left for her retirement but she made a 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 Accordingly, the instant writ petition (s) is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty granted to the petitioner.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 Raju RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Date: 2025.09.17 11:45:09 +0530