1 2025:CGHC:53300 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 12451 of 2025 • Deepan Prasad Sahu S/o Late Shri Ramfal Sahu Aged About 64 Years Resident Of Gawatiya Para, Ward No.14, Village Manja, Post- Sarbhoka, Tahsil- Ramanujnagar, District- Surajpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Director Directorate Of Public Instructions Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Divisional Joint Director Treasury Accounts And Pension Surguja Division Ambikapur District- Surguja (C.G.) 4. The District Education Officer District- Koriya (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate. For Respondent(s) /State. : Mr. Aditya Tiwari, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Mr Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas) Order on Board 31/10/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order dated 24-8-2023 2 (Annexure - P/1) by which recovery of Rs. 1,38,790/- has been made against the petitioner on account of excess payment made to the petitioner during service tenure. 2. The brief facts as reflected from the record are that the petitioner was working as Head Master, Middle School, under respondent No.1 Department and on attaining the age of superannuation the petitioner stood retired from service with effect from 30-4-2023. After superannuation, the impugned recovery order has been issued by the respondent No.3 wherein it was indicated that some excess payment of Rs.1,38,790/- during his service period, therefore, the petitioner was asked to deposit the same to the School. 3. Learned State counsel would submit that so far as recovery is concerned, this Court has already taken a view in case of L.K. Ladiya Vs. State of Chhattigarh in WPS No. 6459/2018 (decided on 13.04.2023) wherein this Court has held in paragraph 14 as under:- “14. In the present case the State has issued recovery notice without giving opportunity of hearing in violation of the direction contained in circular dated 6th July, 2015, therefore, issuance of recovery notice without opportunity of hearing is bad in law. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the Rules 1976 provide power to the State to recover the excess amount but the power has to be exercised in judicial manner in conformity with the principle of nature justice, therefore, it is directed that recovery shall be kept in abeyance and a show cause notice will be issued to the petitioner where he can raise all his grievances whether recovery is justifiable or not, whether the pay fixation is wrong or correct and thereafter, the respondent who has issued recovery order will decide the same in accordance with the rules. The respondent shall issue notice to the petitioner and decision with regard to legality and propriety of recovery will be taken within outer limit of 4 months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.” 4. Considering the facts of the case and also the judgment passed by this Court, it is directed that with regard to the recovery of Rs. 1,38,790/- from the petitioner as excess payment, will be dependable upon the 3 proceedings to be taken by the respondents as per the direction given by this Court in case of L.K. Ladiya (supra). Accordingly, the respondents are directed to issue show cause notice against the alleged excess payment made to the petitioner which will be replied by the petitioner and thereafter, the respondent shall pass the order in accordance with the rules governing the field within an outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of application submitted by the petitioner along with the supporting documents and copy of this order. It is further directed that entitlement of the petitioner to get back the amount from State will be dependable upon the outcome of adjudication of issue by respondents as directed by this Court in case of L.K. Ladiya (supra). 5. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition finally stands disposed of. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Raju RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Date: 2025.11.03 11:23:49 +0530