1 CGHC010234402026 2026:CGHC:32354 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4780 of 2026 Dr. Vivek Shankar Awasthi S/o Shri Ganga Narayan Awasthi, Aged About 61 Years Vetrinary Assistant Surgeon, Presently Working As Additional Deputy Director, Govt. Cross Cattle Breeding Farm, Chandkhuri, District - Raipur, (C.G.) Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Its Secretary, Department Of Livestock Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, (C.G.) 2 - The Director Of Veterinary Services, Directorate Of Veterinary Services, Department Of Livestock Development, Ground Floor, Block No. 03, Indravati Bhavan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Joint Director Raipur, Office Of Joint Director, Veterinary Services, Raipur, (C.G.) 4 - Manager, Government Shankar Animal Breeding Farm, Chandkhuri, District -Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Deputy Director, Directorate Of Treasury Accounts And Pensions, Block - A, Indravati Bhavan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Raipur (C.G.) Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Anuja Sharma, Dy. GA RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.07.28 17:13:44 +0530 2 (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 28/07/2026 1. Challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the communication dated 02.06.2026 (Annexure P/1) and the consequential order dated 12.06.2026 (Annexure P/2), whereby the respondents have sought to recover an amount of ₹15,19,566/- from the petitioner on the ground of alleged excess payment on account of wrong pay fixation and have consequently withheld his salary. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the pay of the petitioner had been fixed by the department itself and the petitioner had no role in the alleged erroneous pay fixation. It is further submitted that after more than ten years, the respondents have directed recovery and revised the petitioner's pay without affording any opportunity of hearing or calling for any explanation from the petitioner. It is contended that the impugned action is in violation of the principles of natural justice and, therefore, deserves to be interfered with. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State, on instructions, would submit that Annexure P/1 is merely a notice issued to the petitioner, whereas Annexure P/2 is the order directing recovery of the alleged excess payment from the petitioner. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that Annexure P/1 is the communication proposing recovery of the amount alleged to have been paid in excess to the petitioner on account of erroneous pay fixation, 3 whereas Annexure P/2 is the consequential order directing such recovery. However, before issuing the said communication and passing the consequential order, neither was any explanation called for from the petitioner nor was he afforded an opportunity of hearing. Since the impugned action visits the petitioner with civil consequences, compliance with the principles of natural justice was imperative before directing such recovery. 5. In view of the above, the communication dated 02.06.2026 (Annexure P/1) and the consequential order dated 12.06.2026 (Annexure P/2) cannot be sustained in law and are accordingly quashed and set aside. 6. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the respondents to proceed afresh in accordance with law. If the respondents propose to initiate any action against the petitioner in relation to the alleged excess payment or recovery thereof, they shall first afford the petitioner an adequate opportunity of hearing, consider his explanation and thereafter pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy and all contentions of the parties are left open to be urged before the competent authority. 8. The Writ Petition stands allowed to the aforesaid extent. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Rahul