1 2025:CGHC:5964-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 87 of 2025 1. Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Dairy Federation Limited, Through Managing Director, OfÏce At- B.M.Y. Charoda, Post Urla, District- Durg, C.G. (Respondent No. 2) 2. Assistant General Manager (Personal And Administration) Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Dairy Federation Limited, OfÏce At- B.M.Y. Charoda, Post Urla, District- Durg, C.G. (Respondent No. 3) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Laxman Chandra Sarkar S/o Late Mohimohan Sarkar Aged About 64 Years R/ Uni Homes, H. No. 84, Bhatagaon, Raipur, C.G. (Petitioner) 2. State of Chhattisgarh Secretary, Department of Pashudhan Vikas Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh, C.G. (Respondent No. 1) ...Respondent(s) For Appellants : Ms. Akanksha Jain and Ms. Anuradha Jain, Advocates. For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Akash Kumar Kundu, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.02.04 10:24:48 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 03 .02.2025 1. Heard Ms. Akanksha Jain, learned counsel for the appellants along with Ms. Anuradha Jain. Also heard Mr. Akash Kumar Kundu, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State. 2. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 20.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 6547 of 2024 (Laxman Chandra Sarkar vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner herein. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that respondent No. 1 / writ petitioner ought to have approached the Registrar against the decision taken by appellant No. 3. She would also contend that undertaking was given by the respondent No. 1 to the effect that excess payment of salary or amount of gratuity would be subject to recovery by the appellants. She would argue that appellants based on the undertaking given by the respondent No. 1, issued orders of recovery. She would also argue that the respondent No. 1 is not entitled to get the benefit of time scale pay in the year 2006, but due to a mistake such benefit was extended to the respondent No. 1, therefore, appellant No. 3 has taken the decision to recover the amount. 3 4. This Court while dealing with the same issue had already dismissed WA No. 51 of 2025 vide order dated 27.01.2025 against the impugned order dated 26.11.2024, but learned counsel for the appellants states that the case of respondent No. 1/writ petitioner herein is slightly different from the said appeal, however, from the perusal of the pleadings made in the present appeal there appears to be no such distinction made in the present appeal to that of the appeal i.e. WA No. 51 of 2025 which has already been dismissed by this Court. 5. This Court while dismissing the WA No. 51 of 2025 (Chhattisgarh State Dairy Cooperative Federation Ltd. vs. Radhe Lal Sinha & Others) vide order dated 27.01.2025 observed as follows : “8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent No.1 herein observing that with regard to undertaking, in the absence of any statutory rule, it cannot be held that undertaking given by the writ petitioners would be binding over them. Respondent No. 3 / appellant herein has not placed on the record rules etc, to establish that in the service rules or revision of pay rules, there is any provision with regard to undertaking, therefore, in the absence of rules, it cannot be held that the undertaking, if any, given by the writ petitioners would be binding upon them. Admittedly, the writ petitioners are employees of respondent No. 3 and they were holding Class-l to Class-IV posts under respondent No. 3. The 4 decision was taken by the Board of Directors on 24.09.2011 and pursuant to that an order was passed by respondent No. 3 to extend the benefit of time scale pay to the writ petitioners and the said benefit was extended. Later on, the Board of Directors again passed a resolution to extend the benefit of second time scale pay in favour of the writ petitioners and again specific order was issued by respondent No. 3 / appellant herein on 25.06.2016. Thus, it cannot be said that there was any misrepresentation on the part of the writ petitioners to get the benefit of time scale pay. The department detected the mistake after a lapse of 12 years from 2011 and after the lapse of 07 years from 2016. 9. Learned Single Judge has further relief upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, (2015) 4 SCC 34 and has held that it is an admitted fact that the benefit was extended by the department itself. It is also not in dispute that all the writ petitioners have got retired from services. Lastly, taking into consideration the facts and law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the learned Single Judge concluded that the orders of recovery are not sustainable in the eyes of law, therefore, the recovery orders issued by the respondent No. 3 / appellant 5 herein was quashed. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / respondent No.1 herein, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).” Since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WA No. 51 of 2025, this appeal may also be dismissed in the same terms. 6. Having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this appeal is identical to WA No. 51 of 2025, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in WA No. 51 of 2025. 7. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 27.01.2025 passed in WA No. 51 of 2025 (Chhattisgarh State Dairy Cooperative Federation Ltd. vs. Radhe Lal Sinha & Others). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan