1 2026:CGHC:22465 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4075 of 2026 Devmanee Durge Shrivastava W/o Prakash Kumar Shrivastava Aged About 40 Years Lecturer Govt, H.S,s, Puri Block Charama District Kanker C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of School Education Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur District Raipur C.G. 2 - Director Public Instructions Indravati Bhawan Raipur District Raipur C.G. 3 - Joint Director, Treasury Account And Pension Jagdalpur Nagar, Raipur District Raipur C.G. 4 - Additional Director C.G. State Audit Civil Line Patharuguda Opposite Lal Bagh Pratiksha Bhawan Jagdalpur District Jagdalpur C.G. 5 - Principal Govt Higher Secondry School Block Charama District Kanker C.G. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2026.05.14 18:54:35 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate For Respondent/ State : Ms. Diksha Gouraha, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 13/05/2026 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking quashment of the impugned order dated 17/03/2026 (Annexure P-1) whereby recovery has been directed and the basic pay of the petitioner has been reduced from Rs.48,200/- to Rs.46,800/-. The petitioner further seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to restore his original basic pay, refund the recovered amount, and to delete the adverse endorsement made in the service book relating to reduction of salary and recovery. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that vide impugned order, recovery of an amount of Rs.1,41,169/- has been directed against the petitioner on the basis of scrutiny of her service book and pay fixation conducted by the respondent No.3/ Joint Director, Treasury and Accounts, Jagdalpur, wherein it has been alleged that excess payment was made to the petitioner for the period from 01.07.2018 to 28.02.2026. He further submits that pursuant to the said scrutiny, the basic pay of the petitioner has also been reduced from Rs.48,200/- to Rs.46,800/-. Learned counsel contends that the impugned recovery order has been passed without issuing any show-cause notice or affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned 3 action is contrary to law and in clear violation of the principles of natural justice and, as such, deserves to be set aside. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that though the impugned action has been taken pursuant to an enquiry regarding pay fixation and service record of the petitioner, however, from perusal of the impugned order itself, it does not appear that any show-cause notice was issued or any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner prior to directing recovery. Hence, learned State counsel submits that the present writ petition may be disposed of with such direction as this Court deems fit and proper. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with the writ petition. 5. From perusal of the record and the impugned order dated 17/03/2026 (Annexure P-1), it appears that the recovery against the petitioner has been directed on the basis of verification of her service book and pay fixation conducted by the competent authority. However, no reason has been assigned in the impugned order as to how the alleged excess payment was determined. It further appears that neither any show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded to her prior to passing of the impugned order. Thus, the impugned action has been taken in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. 4 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 17/03/2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.5 is hereby quashed. Consequently, the amount, if any, has already been recovered from the petitioner pursuant to the impugned order, the same shall be refunded to her forthwith. The writ petition stands allowed. 7. However, it is made clear that the respondents shall be at liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law, if so advised, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and by strictly observing the principles of natural justice. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE S. Bhilwar