1 2026:CGHC:93 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5136 of 2024 Order Reserved on 20.11.2025 Order delivered on 02. 01.2026 T.P. Gupta S/o Late J. R. Gupta Aged About 60 Years Posted As O A Grade 1, Office At- Chief Engineer Office, Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, Thermal Power Station, Korba East, District- Korba, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited Through Its Chairman, Office At Vidyut Bhawan, Danganiya, Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G. 2. Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited Through Its Managing Director, Office At Vidyut Bhawan, Danganiya, Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G. 3. Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited Through Its Chief Engineer (H R), Office At Vidyut Bhawan, Danganiya, Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G. 4. Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited Through Its Executive Director (Generation), Office At Dr Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, Thermal Power Station, Korba East, District- Korba, C.G. 5. Chief Engineer (Bilaspur Area) Office At C S P D C L Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, C.G. 6. Chief Engineer (Production) Office At Dr Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, Thermal Power Station, Korba East, District- Korba, C.G. SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2026.01.02 13:36:00 +0530 2 7. Superintending Engineer (T And Q A) Office At Dr Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, Thermal Power Station, Korba East, District- Korba, C.G. 8. Additional Chief Engineer (Fuel Management) Office At Dr Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, Thermal Power Station, Korba East, District- Korba, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Syed Mohammad Sohail Afzal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas CAV Order 1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 13.08.2024 passed by respondent No. 6/ Chief Engineer (Generation) Dr. Shayama Prashad Mukharjee Power Generation Station, Korba (in short Chief Engineer) wherein the petitioner’s claim for grant of second higher pay scale from 2008 has been declined and recommendation for recovery of excess payment made to the petitioner from 2008. 2. Facts of the case in brief, are that (A) Petitioner was appointed as a Peon on 27th April 1985 and thereafter he was promoted on the post of Office Assistant Grade-3 in the year 1990. The petitioner was not promoted within 9 years of service thus he was granted first higher pay scale in the year 1999 as per notification dated 11.01.1997. Again, after 18 years of service, the petitioner was granted second higher pay scale in year 2008. The petitioner had submitted a form on 02.02.2008 for grant of next Higher pay scale, wherein it was clearly 3 mentioned that the petitioner has not completed account training, despite non-completion of account training, the respondent, after conducting DPC, passed an order on 03.10.2008 and granting second higher pay scale to the petitioner. (B) It is case of the petitioner that in the notification on 19th July 2005 and its explanation dated 20th October 2005 there is no requirement for account training for grant of higher pay scale. The respondent has a policy decision allowing the employees three minimum chances to complete their account training programme. The petitioner successfully completed the account training on 25th August 2023 in his third attempt and the delay in completion was due to the pendency of a Court case related to the training results, which was only disposed of by the Hon'ble Court in the year 2023. The petitioner was promoted to Office Assistant Grade 2 in 2010 after completion of 25 years of service, the petitioner applied for the next higher pay scale on 3rd March 2017. (C) Despite the passage of time, no decision was taken on his application by the respondents, then the petitioner submitted a representation on 5th December 2023 before the respondents. Thereafter on 9th February 2024, the petitioner was informed that an inquiry had been initiated regarding his eligibility for the higher pay scale granted in the year 2008 which was allegedly obtained without completing of required accounts training, to which the petitioner responded to inquiry on 14th February 2024. Despite the petitioner's explanation, the respondent issued a recovery order on 13th August 2024, regarding the eligibility of the petitioner for grant of higher pay 4 scale in the year 2008 and issued recovery order for the alleged excess payment. The petitioner replied to recovery order on 14th August 2024, but the respondent has not provided any satisfactory reasoning for issuance of recovery order. Hence this petition with a prayer for quashing of the order dated 13.08.2024. 3. The petitioner has filed rejoinder wherein it has been contended that the respondents have misinterpreted the circular as the petitioner has cleared the examination within three permissible attempts, as such there is no justifiable reason for recovery of higher pay scale which was granted to the petitioner in the year 2008. 4. That, the respondents have filed their reply denying allegation made in the writ petition mainly contending that (A) the petitioner was promoted in the year 1990 as Assistant Grade-III and he was granted first higher pay scale as per policy prevailing in the year 1999 and next higher pay scale in the year 2008 as despite having qualification for promotion he was not promoted. Thereafter, he was promoted as Office Assistant Grade-II in the year 2010. It is further contended that the recovery order dated 3.08.2024 is in accordinance with the circular dated 29.12.2023 based upon circular dated 30.01.1989 as it is compulsory for promotion on the post of Office Assistant Grade -II or Office Assistant Grade-I to the Assistant Grade-III to go three months compulsory account training, as such all the employees appointed to the post of Office Assistant Grade-II after 01.01.1989 are required to undergo three months account training and they have to pass the examination for further 5 promotion of O.A. Grade-I/ S.O. Grade-II or grant of higher pay scale. Even if the candidate is not having account training and promoted they have to undergo three months account training and only three times opportunity is granted as evident from the circular dated 29.12.2023. (B) It has been further contended that since the petitioner is not fulfilling the essential criteria for getting higher pay scale the impugned order has been passed and when the petitioner has completed the training the same has been granted, as such the impugned order passed by the respondents is legal, justified and does not warranting interference by this Court. It has also been contended that the petitioner was relieved from service for joining account training for the period from 01.12.2016 to 28.02.2017 but he has not cleared the training, therefore, he was again relieved to undergo for account training from 03.07.2023 to 25.08.2023 then he has cleared account training in 2023. (C) It has been further submitted that the respondents have constituted a committee to enquire regarding grant of second higher pay scale to the petitioner on 29.01.2024 thereafter the committee has submitted a report and notice was issued to the petitioner on 09.02.2024 but was not replied by the petitioner thereafter he has made a representation against the impugned order dated 13.08.2024 as evident from Annexure R/5, as such it cannot be said that before arriving such decision inquiry has not been conducted which is inconformity of principle of natural justice. 6 (D) It has been further contended that the petitioner has not referred the circular completely as the circular dated 19.07.2005 which clearly provides that in the case of employee whose promotion to higher post is held up for want of minimum qualification such employee shall not be eligible to opt for higher pay scale and he has to pass necessary examination prescribed if any by the Board for getting promotion to the higher grade. Since the second higher pay scale was granted on 03.10.2008 as the petitioner is required to complete minimum qualification of three months account training which he was not having at the relevant time and he has passed the examination in the year 2023 therefore, the committee examined the case of the petitioner and held that the petitioner is entitled to get higher pay scale in the year 2023 only thus there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order and thus would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order dated 13.08.2024 passed by the Respondent No.6 is arbitrary, illegal as it has been passed without proper application of mind, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. He would further submit that recovery order was passed without providing reasonable opportunity to defend his case which is clearly violation of principle of natural justice. He would further submit that action of respondents for issuing a recovery order after a significant delay, and despite the petitioner's completion of the accounts training programmer, is arbitrary and unjust. He would further submit that the recovery order is based on a retrospective application of criteria that was not stipulated at the time of granting the higher pay scale in 2008. He 7 would further submit that the respondents having granted higher pay scale in 2008 to the petitioner and allowed him to continue in his position without objection, estopped retrospectively challenging the petitioner's eligibility required for the post of Section Officer and not for Office Assistant Grade-1, which the petitioner holds and for which he is receiving the benefit of the higher pay scale. Despite this clear communication, the respondent has unjustly issued a recovery order based on the non- completion of accounts training, which is not applicable to the petitioner. (C) It has been further contended that respondents have discriminated against the petitioner by initiating recovery proceedings against him, while juniors who were received higher pay scale benefits without completing the account training programme, as such action of the respondents is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violates the principles of equality before the law. To substantiate his submission, he has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Others [(2015) 4 SCC 334), wherein it was held that recovery from employees who have retired or are on the verge of retirement is impermissible. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that any retrospective denial of benefits already granted is violative of the principles of natural justice and would pray for quashing of the order dated 13.08.2024. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent reiterating the facts and circulars issued by the Board/ company would submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Rafique Masih 8 (whitewasher) and ors. Reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 has allowed the recovery if is not within one year from the date of retirement or superannuation of an employee, as the petitioner is due for retirement after w years, as such judgment cited by the petitioner will not come in rescue of the petitioner and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. From the submission made by the parties for determination of this Court is whether the impugned order dated 13.08.2024 is legal, justified and liable to be quashed by this Court or not. 9. To appreciate the point of determination, it is expedient for this Court to extract the circular/policy of the respondents granting higher pay scale. The respondents has referred the circular dated 29.12.2003 which is continuation of circular dated 30.01.1989 which specifically provides that all the employees appointed office Assistant Grade-II after 01.01.1989 are required to undergo three months account training and also passed the associate examination for further promotion to the post of O.A. Grade-I/S.K Grade-II or grant of higher pay scale and who have not undergone account training shall be considered for promotion to the next higher post of O.A. Grade-I and S.O. respectively but will be required to undergo and pass three months training before they are considered for further promotion to the post of S.O. and Account Officer respectively. Even the circular dated 11.01.1997 filed by the petitioner also provides that it is necessary that employee who was promoted to the post of O.A. Grade-II after 01.01.1989 to undergo three months training and also passed the Associate 9 examination before they are considered for promotion to the next higher post of O.A. Grade-I for grant of higher pay scale which clearly demonstrate that circular dated 11.01.1997 is against the petitioner. 10. The petitioner has contended that the delay in training was due to stay granted by the Court, as such the recovery order should not be passed is also misconceived and deserves to be redirected as the responded has also relieved the petitioner for account training is evident from order dated 30.011.2016 (Annexure R/1) and this fact has not been disputed by the petitioner, as such his claim for exemption from account training for this period deserves to be rejected and it is rejected. Similarly, the circular dated 19.07.2005 (Annexure P/5) filed by the petitioner which is grant of higher pay scale also provides that in case of employee whose promotion to the higher post is held up for want of minimum qualification such employee shall not be eligible to opt for higher pay scale. If the employee is not having requisite training for grant of higher pay scale. From perusal of above circular and also considering the undisputed fact that the petitioner has not cleared the account training examination in the year 2008 when second pay scale was granted to the petitioner, he was not entitled to get higher pay scale. This facts are known to the petitioner only as this can be within the specific knowledge of the petitioner that he has not cleared the training examination, as such it cannot be said that he was not aware of getting high pay scale which he is otherwise not entitled to get, therefore, it cannot be said that it was solely mistake on the part of the respondents. In fact, the petitioner has obtained the benefits after concealment of the 10 material facts. 11. The effect of concealment of fact is that it vitiates everything and equity is always granted to the person who comes to the court of law with clean hands, as such the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief as he himself is responsible for concealment of the fact. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. N.M. Raut & Ors reported in 2024 INSC 1042 has held as under;- 22. We are informed that, in the present case, the Government of India had implemented and executed the MACPS by granting benefits to the respondents and, later on, recoveries were initiated. As many of the employees may have retired, in terms of the decision of this Court in “State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others, we deem it appropriate to direct that the Union of India will not effect any recovery of arrears from the retirees or those who are retiring within one year from the date of pronouncement of this judgment. 23. In other cases, the recoveries may be made after issuing notice to the employee concerned, whose request for proportionate recovery over a period of time not exceeding two years, may be considered depending upon the quantum of recovery which is to be made. We also deem it appropriate to direct that the appellant, Union of India, will not charge interest on the amount to be recovered as they themselves had made the payment and, the issue being debatable, to ask the employees to pay interest at this distant point of time may lead to difficulty both in calculation as well as in payment. 24. However, it is clarified that the pension and the pay scale, which are payable shall be re-determined on the basis of this judgment and will apply prospectively with effect from 01.01.2025. 25. Where recoveries have been made from the retirees, the same shall be refunded. However, in the case of serving employees, where recoveries have been made, the same need not be refunded. 26. We also clarify that we have not made any comments or observations on any petition/appeal which is filed challenging the validity and legality of Clause 8.1 of the MACPS. 11 12. From the above stated position of law, it is quite vivid that recovery can be made from an employee if he is not due for retirement within one year. In the present case, the petitioner is not due for retirement when the order was passed on 23.08.2024 as the age of superannuation in Chhattisgarh Power General Company is 62 years, thus in view of Rafiq Masih (supra) and M.N. Raut (supra), the recovery order is permissible. Since the petitioner is unable to justify grant of second higher pay scale from 2008, I am of the view that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. 13. Before parting with this case, it is made clear that the respondents initiated recovery proceedings, monthly installment should not be on higher side but should be proportionate to the liability and salary of the petitioner, so that no inconvenience can be caused to the petitioner. 14. Interim order passed by this Court on 28.08.2024 stands vacated. Sd/- Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge santosh