1 CGHC010354972022 2026:CGHC:30606 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7639 of 2022 1 - Musafir Singh S/o Birju Singh Aged About 54 Years Head Constable, R/o Ward No. 48, New Police Line, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through, The Secretary Department Of Home Affairs, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director General Of Police Police Headquarter, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Inspector General Of Police Police Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Deputy Inspector General Of Police-Cum-Senior Superintendent Of Police Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh 5 - Inspector General Of Police Bastar Range, District Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri Anurag Singh, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Dy.G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 20.07.2026 NIRMALA RAO 2 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records from the respondent authorities pertaining to the case of the petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned order dated 17.02.2022 (Annexure P/4) passed by the respondent no. 4, in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the order dated 07.12.2020 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent no. 5, in the interest of justice. 10.4 Any other relief, which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be allowed.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that, at the relevant time, the petitioner was posted as Head Constable at the Reserved Police Station, Sukma and his services were transferred to Narayanpur vide order dated 2.12.2011. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing WPS No.7614 of 2011, which was disposed of vide order dated 26.6.2012 whereby a direction was issued to the respondent authorities to consider the representation of the petitioner, however, interim order maintaining status-quo, as obtained on 14.12.2011, was granted in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner failed to join at the transferred place and subsequently, after disposal of his representation, he was transferred from Narayanpur to Sukma vide order dated 31.8.2012. The petitioner joined at the transferred place on 17.9.2012 with a delay of four days. A show-cause notice was issued to him and subsequently, the period of his absence was 3 declared as non-working days and the principle of ‘No Work No Pay’ was applied. However, in the meantime, the benefit of annual increment was extended in favour of the petitioner with effect from 1.7.2012. Thereafter, the department took a decision to recover the excess payment amounting to Rs.1,11,175/- vide order dated 3.2.2022. The petitioner has challenged both the orders. He would submit that there was no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner and benefit of annual increment was extended to him by the department itself. He would further contend that the petitioner is a Class-III employee and it is very difficult for him to repay the said amount. He would pray to quash the order of recovery. With regard to the order dated 7.12.2020, whereby the period of absence of 211 days was declared as non-working days and the principle of ‘No Work No Pay’ was applied, he would contend that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passing said order, therefore, the order is bad in law. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would contend that the order of recovery is an outcome of the order of penalty imposed by the competent authority vide order dated 7.12.2020. He would further contend that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy to challenge the said order by filing a departmental appeal and therefore, the present petition is not maintainable. With regard to the order of recovery, he would submit that if the petitioner prefers an appeal and the same is allowed, the subsequent order of recovery shall 4 automatically cease to operate. He would submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on record. 5. Though the services of the petitioner were transferred, he failed to join at the transferred place. Consequently, the period of 211 days was declared as non-working days and the principle of ‘No Work No Pay’ was applied by the Inspector General of Police, Bastar Range vide order dated 7.12.2020. The said order was not brought to the notice of the respondent authorities and the benefit of one annual increment was extended to the petitioner and therefore, within a period of two years, a decision was taken by the department to recover the excess payment made to the petitioner vide order dated 3.2.2022. It is true that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passing the order of recovery, but at the same time, the said order is merely a consequence of the order of penalty dated 7.12.2020. 6. The petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy to challenge the order dated 7.12.2020 by filing a departmental appeal before the competent Appellate Authority and therefore, in my opinion, this petition is not maintainable and is accordingly, dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to challenge the order dated 7.12.2020 by filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority. If the petitioner prefers such an appeal, it is expected that the Appellate Authority shall decide the same expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 5 7. The interim order dated 22.11.2022 passed in favour of the petitioner, shall continue to remain in force till the disposal of the departmental appeal. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi