Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 52621 (CHH)

DILEEP KUMAR LAVATRE v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

WPS/3508/2021 · 2025-10-05

Shri Sachin Singh Rajput

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:49702 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3508 of 2021 1 - Dileep Kumar Lavatre S/o Ramhu Lal Lavatre Aged About 56 Years Working As Head Master, Govt. Primary School Dugga Bahara, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Principal Secretary Department Of Finance Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - District Education Officer District- Balod, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Block Education Officer Gurur, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Naveen Nirala, Advocate For Respondent/ State : Shri Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer ({Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput}) Order on Board 06/10/2025 This petition has been filed seeking for following relief (s) - “i) That, petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court 2 may kindly be pleased to set aside / quash the impugned recovery order dated 14/06/2021 (Annexure P/1). ii) That, petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court may kindly order writ of appropriate nature directing the respondents to continue the salary as per increased pay grade, prohibiting recovery. ii) Any other relief or reliefs that may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be kindly granted.” 2. Facts of the case in brief is that the petitioner is working as Head Master in the Government Primary School, Dugga Bahara, Distt. – Balod, CG. He has been working since 02/03/1984 and regularised on 02/03/1986. He was granted higher pay scale on 23/08/2008 by the respondents. Vide impugned order dated 14/06/2021, the petitioner was told by respondent No.3 that on an enquiry, it was found that salary paid to the petitioner from 01/03/2008 to 30/06/2017 is excess and total recoverable amount is Rs.1,84,862/- which is to be recovered from the petitioner. It is this order which is under challenged in this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order was issued to the petitioner directing him to pay Rs.1,84,862/- on account of some wrong fixation of pay. He submits that not show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. He further submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and ors etc. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc., 2015 AIR SCW 501. He submits that identical issue has come up before this Court in WPS No.6678/18 and this Court vide its order dated 18/10/2018 quashed the recovery of amount on account of wrong fixation against the petitioner therein. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that due to error, wrong fixation was done in the pay scale and the petitioner was paid excess amount and the petitioner was aware of the fact which is also reflected from his service book. The case of Rafiq Masih (supra) would not be applicable in the case in hand. Therefore, it is submitted that this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. Perusal of Annexure P/1 indicates that the impugned order was issued on 3 14/06/2021 with respect to certain excess payment made from 01/03/2008 to 30/06/2017. The said letter was issued even after more than four years from the last excess payment was made. This Court relying upon the decision in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) in WPS No.6678/2018 quashed the recovery proceedings against the petitioner therein even when the petitioner therein was in service. In the opinion of this Court, as the recovery was made from the year 2018 which is more than 5 years and it is not a case that excess payment was made on account of misrepresentation on behalf of the petitioner. Therefore, relying upon the decision in WPS No.6678/2018, this writ petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. Annexure P/1 is quashed. All pending applications are disposed off. Sd/- ({Sachin Singh Rajput}) JUDGE Deepti DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Digitally signed by DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Date: 2025.10.09 10:52:19 +0530