1 CGHC010203842018 2026:CGHC:29857 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4442 of 2018  Anil Kumar Shrivastava S/o Shri Krishna Kumar Shrivastava, Aged About 51 Years Presently Posted As Headmaster, Government Middle School, Sarekha, Block Bodla, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Director, Directorate Of Public Instruction, 1st Floor, 3rd Block, Indravati Bhawan, Hod Building, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. District Education Officer, Department Of School Education, Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 4. Block Education Officer, Bodla, District Kabidham Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 5. Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 4454 of 2018  Lalji Chandravanshi S/o Shri Jeet Ram Chandravanshi Aged About 57 Years Presently Posted As Headmaster, Government Middle School, Kesli Godaan, Block Pandariya, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Director Address- Directorate Of Public Instruction 1st Floor, 3rd Block, SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.07.17 14:15:02 +0530 2 Indravati Bhawan, Hod Building, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. District Education Officer Department Of School Education, Kawardha, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 4. Block Eduction Officer Bodla, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 5. Joint Director Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 4450 of 2018  Sagram Chandravanshi S/o Shri Paras Ram Chandravanshi, Aged About 53 Years Presently Posted As Lecturer, Government Higher Secondary School, Raja Nawagaon, Block Nawagaon, Block Bodla, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Director, Directorate Of Public Instruction, 1st Floor, 3rd Block, Indravati Bhawan, Hod Building, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. District Education Officer, Department Of School Education, Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh, District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 4. Block Education Officer, Bodla, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh., District : Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh 5. Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Yashraj Verma, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. K. Rohan, Advocate For State : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 15.07 .2026 1. In these petitions, the petitioners have challenged order issued by respondents No. 4 and 5 with regard to withdrawal of two advance 3 increments, which were extended to the petitioners on 01.07.2014, 12.01.2006 and 28.04.2014 and recovery of the excess amount paid to the petitioners. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that initially petitioners were appointed as Teachers, and subsequently, they were promoted to the post of Upper Division Teachers. They were entrusted with the work of Census 2001 & 2011 and they discharged their duties to the satisfaction of the authorities. Mr. Verma would contend that the petitioners were given certificates of honour for high quality of service rendered. It is argued by Mr. Verma that the petitioners were extended benefit of two advance increments pursuant to circular dated 26.05.2005 issued by Chhattisgarh State School Education Department, but subsequently, benefits have been withdrawn without assigning sufficient reasons. He would argue that as the petitioners were given certificates by Hon’ble President of India, therefore, they are still entitled for benefit of two advance increments and the orders issued by respondents No. 4 and 5 are bad in law. He would contend that entry made by respondents No. 4 & 5 in the service book of the petitioners for recovery of excess amount is illegal, arbitrary and bad in law. He would further contend that as the petitioners were rightly granted two advance increments, the respondents No. 4 & 5 should not have directed recovery of the amount paid to them. He as placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer); (2015) 4 SCC 334. He would pray to allow these petitions. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Kumrani, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would contend that vide circular dated 12.01.2006, respondent No. 1 clarified the 4 fact that the benefit of advance increments would be granted to the award- winning Teachers in accordance with the earlier circular dated 26.05.2005. Mr. Kumrani would contend that the petitioners never received any award, and therefore, they are not entitled for two or one increments and they were wrongly extended said benefit. He would contend that when this mistake was brought into the notice of respondent authorities, decision was taken to withdraw said benefit. He would contend that two advance increments was granted due to a mistake, therefore, the same was rightly withdrawn by the respondents No. 4 & 5 and order has been passed for recovery of excess amount paid. He would submit that these petitions are misconceived and deserve to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. Admittedly, petitioners worked for Census 2001 & 2011 and they received certificates from the Hon’ble President of India. The circular dated 26.05.2005 states about grant of two advance increments to the Teachers, who have been honoured with the Presidential award and one increment to the Teachers, who have received State level award. In the subsequent circular dated 12.01.2006 and 30.01.2006 the State Government clarified the entitlement and directed the District Education Officers and Assistant Commissioner to extend benefit of two and one advance increments if a Teacher is awarded by Presidential award or award at State level. 6. In the cases at hand, the petitioners participated in the Census 2001 & 2011 and they were given certificates only and there is no document to infer that the petitioners were granted Presidential Award or State level award, 5 therefore, the respondent authorities rightly withdrew the benefit of two advance increments, which was extended to the petitioners, therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere. Accordingly, claim of the petitioners with regard to grant of two advance increments is hereby rejected. 7. With regard to recovery proceeding, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra) has summarized the permissible exceptions to recovery in para 18 and has clearly held that recovery in the following cases would be impermissible in law :– “18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: (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 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 6 balance of the employer's right to recover. ” 8. In the present case, the petitioners are Class – III employees, and there is no allegation of misrepresentation or fraud against them. The benefit of advance increments was extended by the department itself. Therefore, the case of the petitioners is squarely covered with the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih(supra). 9. In view of the above discussion, and in light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra), order of recovery of excess amount paid to the petitioners, passed by respondents No. 4 & 5 in the service books of the petitioners of excess amount are hereby quashed. Any amount recovered from the petitioners shall be refunded to them forthwith. 10. Interim relief granted earlier is hereby vacated. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant