1 2026:CGHC:19576 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4007 of 2022  Balraj Das S/o Late Shri Ramratan Das Aged About 60 Years Working As Lecturer (E Cadre) At Govt. Girls Higher Secondry School Manendragarh District Korea Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Education Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. District Education Officer, District Koriya Chhattisgarh. 3. Principal Govt Girls Higher Secondry School E Cadre Manendragarh District Korea Chhattisgarh. 4. Balram Das R/o Nagoi Block Sonhat District Korea Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate For State : Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Dy. G.A. For Respondent No.4 : Mr. C.K. Sahu, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 28.4.2026 1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:- (i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash recovery/salary deduction order (Annexure P-1) and Annexure P-2 in Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.04.28 16:38:22 +0530 2 the interest of justice. (ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that father of petitioner, who was a government servant died in harness on 12.5.1979 and thereafter petitioner was granted compassionate appointment vide order dated 14.8.1994. He further submits that allegedly on the basis of a complaint made by the respondent No. 4, who is the brother of petitioner seeking maintenance from the petitioner, District Education Officer, Koriya vide order dated 11.2.2022 directed to deduct Rs. 5,000/- from the salary of the petitioner and to deposit the same in the bank account of respondent No. 4. He contends that the authority concerned modified its earlier order and directed to deduct Rs. 2,000/- from the salary of petitioner vide order dated 9.5.2022. He further contends that mother of petitioner is no more and respondent No. 4 in his reply has categorically stated that no application was moved before the respondent authorities seeking maintenance. He argues that there is no provision to pass an order for grant of maintenance in service rules and the aforestated orders are bad in law and deserve to be quashed. 3) On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose. 4) Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 submits that no application was moved by respondent No. 4 for grant of 3 maintenance. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6) Admittedly, respondent No. 4 has categorically stated that no application seeking grant of maintenance was moved by him at any point of time but the District Education Officer, Koriya passed orders dated 11.2.2022 and 9.5.2022 for grant of maintenance in absence of any provision contained in service rules. 7) In view of the discussion made herein-above, the orders dated 11.2.2022 and 9.5.2022 are not sustainable in the eyes of law and are hereby quashed. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed. 8) Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a