1 CGHC010386762023 2026:CGHC:36208 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9115 of 2023 Serenius Toppo S/o Late Antony Toppo Aged About 61 Years Working As Deputy General Manager, C.G. Rajya Antyavasai Sahkari Vitta Evam Vikas Nigam, 2nd Floor, Tribal Research Institute (Tri) Building, Sector-24, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner. Versus 1. C.G. Rajya Antyavasai Sahkari Vitta Evam Vikas Nigam Through Its Managing Director, 2nd Floor, Tribal Research Institute (Tri) Building, Sector-24, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Chairman Board Of Directors/appellate Authority, C.G. Rajya Antyavasai Sahkari Vitta Evam Vikas Nigam, 2nd Floor, Tribal Research Institute (Tri) Building, Sector-24, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3. Managing Director C.G. Rajya Antyavasai Sahkari Vitta Evam Vikas Nigam, 2nd Floor, Tribal Research Institute (Tri) Building, Sector-24, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents. (cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner : Mr. Manish Nigam, Advocate. For Respondents : Ms. Somya Das, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, Advocate. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 14/08/2026 With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2026.08.17 10:15:46 +0530 2 1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 30.01.2023 and the subsequent modified order dated 07.03.2023 (both Annexure-P/1) passed by Respondent No.1, whereby a recovery order was passed against the petitioner, as well as the impugned order dated 10.09.2023 (Annexure-P/2), whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected by Respondent No.2. 2. Shorn of excess details, facts of the case in nutshell are that a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner alleging that he regularized two daily-wage employees namely Prafull Tiwari and Jitendra Kumar Verma on the regular post of Driver in the Respondent Department, dehors the circulars and communications issued by the Government of Chhattisgarh and without placing the file before the Managing Director. Following a Departmental Enquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted a report holding the petitioner guilty. Consequently, the petitioner was directed to deposit a total differential amount of Rs. 3,03,847/- (paid to those two daily-wage employees) as a penalty, to be deducted from his salary on a monthly basis vide Annexure- P/1 and Annexure-P/2. The petitioner preferred an appeal challenging the recovery/penalty order, which was subsequently dismissed by Respondent No.2 vide Annexure-P/2. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the relevant time in the year 2007, while serving as the In-charge General Manager of Respondent No.1, the petitioner forwarded a note-sheet for the regularization of the two daily-wage employees against two sanctioned regular posts of Driver vide communication dated 07.03.2015. He further submits that the proposal made by the petitioner was duly accepted by the Managing Director vide 3 order dated 23.01.2017 (Annexure-P/3), pursuant to which the above two employees were appointed to the regular post of Driver. However, their appointments were subsequently cancelled vide order dated 18.04.2018 (Annexure-P/4) by the Managing Director. Thereafter, without any lawful justification, a departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner, wherein he was held guilty and subjected to a recovery of the differential amount paid to those employees which is completely arbitrary and bad in law. 4. Learned counsel further submits that the those two daily wage employees challenged the cancellation order dated 18.04.2018 before a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No. 3309/2018 (Prafull Tiwari vs. State of C.G. and Others) and WPS No. 258/2019 (Jitendra Kumar Verma vs. State of C.G. and Another). The learned Single Bench, vide common order dated 11.05.2023, held that there was no illegality in the regularization of the said employees and directed the authorities to treat them as regular employees with all service benefits. Subsequently, Writ Appeal No. 377/2023 (Chhattisgarh State Antyavasai Co-operative Finance and Development Corporation Ltd. vs. State of C.G. and Another) filed by Respondent No. 1 was dismissed by the learned Division Bench of this Court. That dismissal was further upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 23.01.2024 passed in SLP(C) No. 1559/2024 (Chhattisgarh State Antyavasai Cooperative Finance and Development Corporation Ltd. vs. Prafull Tiwari and Anr.). In view of the above submission, learned counsel submits that since the act performed by the petitioner has been upheld up to the Hon'ble Apex Court, therefore, the petitioner cannot be held guilty. Hence, the impugned 4 orders dated 30.01.2023 and 07.03.2023 (Annexure-P/1), as well as the order dated 10.09.2023 (Annexure-P/2), deserve to be set aside, and the petitioner is entitled to a refund of the amount deducted from his salary along with interest @ 9% per annum. 5. Respondent No. 3 has filed its reply. Although Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have not filed separate replies, learned counsel representing the respondents submitted that she represents all three respondents, hence, the reply of Respondent No.3 may be treated as the reply on behalf of all respondents. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents, referring to the reply, submits that after a detailed Departmental Enquiry, the petitioner was found guilty and an appropriate recovery order was passed against him vide Annexure-P/1 & - P/2 because he regularized two daily-wage employees contrary to the circulars and communications issued by the State Government, without placing the file before the competent Authority. Thus, the writ petition deserves to be rejected. 7. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record. 8. The main allegation against the petitioner is that he regularized two daily- wage employees, namely Prafull Tiwari and Jitendra Kumar Verma, on the regular post of Driver sanctioned by the State Government vide communication dated 07.03.2015, dehors the circulars issued by the State Government. It is undisputed that those two daily-wage employees were regularized on the post of Driver vide order dated 23.01.2017 (Annexure- P/3) by the Managing Director, and subsequently, their regularization was cancelled vide order dated 18.04.2018 (Annexure-P/4) by Respondent No.1. 9. When the cancellation order dated 18.04.2018 (Annexure-P/4) was challenged by the two employees in WPS No. 3309/2018 (Prafull Tiwari vs. 5 State of C.G. and Others) and WPS No. 258/2019 (Jitendra Kumar Verma vs. State of C.G. and Another), both writ petitions were allowed by a common order dated 11.05.2023. A perusal of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench reveals that the Court considered that due procedure was followed regarding the regularization of the two daily-wage employees against sanctioned regular posts. After examining the issue in detail, the learned Single Judge arrived at the following conclusion in Paragraph 15: "15. It is a settled position of law that the regularization can be done if the petitioners are having requisite qualification for sanctioned posts and their appointment is not illegal. In the present case, the selection process was followed as per the rules prevailing at the time of appointment of the petitioners, therefore, it cannot be said that their appointments were illegal, as such order dated 23.01.20107 granting regular pay scale to the petitioners was rightly passed. Therefore, the action of the respondents canceling the regularization vide order dated 11.01.2018 and 18.04.2018 are bad in law." 10. As such, the writ petitions filed by both daily-wage employees were allowed, and the respondents were directed to regularize them on the post of Driver with all service benefits. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the Respondent Department preferred Writ Appeal No. 377/2023 (Chhattisgarh State Antyavasai Co-operative Finance and Development Corporation Ltd. vs. State of C.G. and Another), which was dismissed by the learned Division Bench of this Court. The rejection was further affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 23.01.2024 passed in SLP(C) No. 1559/2024 (Chhattisgarh State Antyavasai Cooperative Finance and Development Corporation Ltd. vs. Prafull Tiwari and Anr.). Thus, the findings in favor of those two employees have attained finality. 6 11. In such circumstances, since the very foundation of the Departmental Enquiry against the petitioner i.e. the regularization of the two daily-wage employees, has been affirmed up to the Hon'ble Apex Court, and further, as the respondents have failed to assign any cogent reason to hold the petitioner guilty for the alleged act, the impugned recovery order (Annexure- P/1) and the appellate order (Annexure-P/2) are wholly unsustainable in law. 12. As a result, the impugned order dated 30.01.2023, the subsequent modified order dated 07.03.2023 (both Annexure-P/1) passed by Respondent No.1 (whereby recovery was ordered against the petitioner), and the impugned order dated 10.09.2023 (Annexure-P/2) passed by Respondent No. 2 (whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected) are hereby quashed and set-aside. 13. It is further directed that if any amount has been recovered from the petitioner pursuant to the aforesaid orders, the same shall be refunded by the Respondent/Competent Authority as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is also made clear that if the entire recovered amount is not refunded within the stipulated period, the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of default until actual payment. 14. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. 15. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Ajay Judge