1 2025:CGHC:3363 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1498 of 2018 1 - Laxmin Kumari Rathore D/o Shri Makhan Lal Rathore Aged About 47 Years Working As Head Master At Government Primary School Asounda Block Sakti District Janjgir - Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Education Department Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralay New Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - District Education Officer , Sakti District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - District Treasury Officer Janjgir , District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 4 - Block Education Officer , Block Sakti District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Jeet Patel, Advocate For State : Mr. Lav Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 20.01.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 27.01.2018 & circular Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH -2- (Annexure P/1 and P/2) and petitioner may be held entitled for two advance increment, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to restrain the respondent from making recovery and amount any recovered may be refunded with 18% interest, in the interest of justice. 10.3 Any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given. 2. Mr. Patel, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher at Government Primary School Sakti, District Janjgir Champa in the year 1995. He would further submit that the petitioner had acquired qualifications of B.Ed. prior to his appointment to the post of Teacher. He would contend that the State granted the benefit of two advance increments on account of acquiring qualification of B.Ed. from the date of appointment and it continued till 31.12.2017. He would further contend that vide order dated 27.01.2018, an order of recovery to the tune of Rs.1,23,378/- was issued by the Block Education Officer, Sakti, District-Janjgir-Champa now District-Sakti. He would state that there was no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner, the Circular dated 01.12.2016 was issued subsequently and it cannot be given retrospective effect. He would further state that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered with the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, 2015 AIR SCW 501. 3 3. On the other hand, Mr. Sharma, the learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Patel. He would submit that the petitioner was not entitled to get the benefit of two advance increments as he joined services in the year 1995. He would further submit that according to the Circular dated 01.12.2016 and earlier circulars, the teachers who were appointed after 16.06.1993 would only be entitled to get the benefit of two advance increments if they had the qualification of B.Ed. He would lastly submit that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner is a Class-III employee. The benefit was extended since 1995 i.e. the date of joining as the petitioner had acquired qualification of B.Ed. prior to joining the services. There was no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner and the benefit continued in favour of the petitioner till 31.12.2017. 6. In the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- “(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class- III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service). (ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a -4- higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post. (v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.” 7. Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra) and the facts of the case, the order dated 27.01.2018 (Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed. The amount, if any, recovered shall be refunded to the petitioner forthwith. But in the future, after 31.12.2017, the petitioner shall not be entitled to get the benefit of two advance increments. 8. With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha