Allowed

Chout Ram Tandan v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC1 Oct 2018WA/555/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeals filed by Assistant Teachers challenging an order for recovery of excess salary drawn under a revised pay scale. The High Court held that since the employees had given undertakings to refund excess payments and are still in service, the recovery order stands, dismissing the appeals.

What did the court decide?

I.A. No.1 of 2018 (condonation of delay) allowed; all writ appeals dismissed.

Chout Ram Tandan Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Appeal No. 498 of 2018

¶4

Smt. Devki Kumari Dinkar W/o Shri Panch Ram Dinkar, Aged About 45 Years Occupation Service, Presently Working As Assistant Teacher Panchayat (Shiksha Karmi GR.III), Posted At Government Primary School, Borahadand, Tahsil And Janpad Panchayat Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶5

---- Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, New Mantralaya, New Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶8

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶9

The Depury Director, Department Of Panchayat, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶10

The Block Education Officer, Block Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶11

The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶12

---- Respondents

¶13

Writ Appeal No. 555 of 2018

¶14

Chout Ram Tandan S/o Late Shri Muniram Tandan, Aged About 45 Years Occupation - Asst. Teacher ( Panchayat ) ( Shiksha Karmi - Gr. III ) Government Primary School Chunchunidand, Miriguda Tahsil And Janpad Panchayat Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ( Arising Out Of The Order Dt. 28.03.2018 Passed In W P S No. 723/2018 )

¶15

Smt. Lili Mariam Lakda ( After Marriage Smt. Lili Mariam Khess ) S/o Shri Suleman Khess , Aged About 42 Years Occupation - Service, Presently Working As - Assistant Teacher - Panchayat (Shiksha Karmi Gr. III) Posted At Government Primary School, Bandhanpur, Samniya Tahsil And Janpad Panchayat Dharamjaigarh District Raigarh. ( Arising Out Of The Order Dt. 28.03.2018 Passed In W P S No. 779/2018 )

¶16

Budh Ram Ratre , S/o Shri Hetram Ratre , Aged About 54 Years Occupation - Asst. Teacher ( Panchayat ) ( Shiksha Karmi - Gr. III ) , Government Primary School Tonahinara, Tahsil And Janpad Panchayat Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ( Arising Out Of The Order Dt. 28.03.2018 Passed In W P S No. 749/2018 )

¶17

Bhoklu Ram Chakradhari, Shri Sunaram Chakradhari Aged About 54 Years Occupation - Asst. Teacher ( Panchayat ) ( Shiksha Karmi Gr. III ) Government Primary School - Gotiyapara Kumarta , Tahsil And Janpad Panchayat Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ( Arising Out Of The Order Dt. 28.03.2018 Passed In W P S No. 780/2018 )

¶18

Hetram Dansena S/o Shri Shivpal Dansena Aged About 49 Years Occupation - Asst. Teacher ( Panchayat ) ( Shiksha Karmi - Gr. III ) Government Primary School

¶19

¶20

Salka , Tahsil And Janpad Panchayat Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ( Arising Out Of The Order Dt. 28.3.2018 Passed In WPS No. 778/2018 )

¶21

Agneyus Kujur S/o Sukdev Kujur Aged About 44 Years Occupation - Asst. Teacher ( Panchayat ) ( Shiksha Karmi - Gr. III ), Government Primary School Ganpatpur , Tahsil And Janpad Panchayat Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ( Arising Out Of The Order Dt. 28.3.2018 Passed In WPS No. 865/2018 )

¶22

Ku. Indro Ekka ( After Marriage Smt. Indro Panna ) W/o Shri Prem Sai Panna Aged About 44 Years Occupation - Service , Presently Working As Assistant Teacher - Panchayat ( Shiksha Karmi Gr. III ) Posted At Government Primary School, Raimer, Tahsil And Janpad Panchayat Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ( Arising Out Of The Order Dt. 28.3.2018 Passed In WPS No. 754/2018 )

¶23

Smt. Urmila Ekka , W/o Irman Ekka Aged About 43 Years Occupation - Service , Presently Working As Assistant Teacher - Panchayat ( Shiksha Karmi Gr. III ) Posted At Government Primary School, Pakhnakot , Tahsil And Janpad Panchayat Dharamjaigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ( Arising Out Of The Order Dt. 28.3.2018 Passed In WPS No. 725/2018 )

¶24

Smt. Keso Bai @ Kesho Bai, W/o Shri Sukhdev Ram Aged About 46 Years Occupation - Service - Presently Working As - Assistant Teacher - Panchayat ( Shiksha Karmi Gr. III ) Posted At Government Primary School, Samniya, Tahsil And Janpad Panchayat - Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ( Arising Out Of The Order Dt. 28.3.2018 Passed In WPS No. 751/2018 )

¶25

10.Smt. Suhano Sidar D/o Vinay Pande Aged About 42 Years Occupation - Service , Presently Working As Assistant Teacher - Panchayat ( Shiksha Karmi Gr. III ) Posted At Government Primary School, Kapu, Tahsil And Janpad Panchayat Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ( Arising Out Of The Order Dt. 28.3.2018 Passed In WPS No. 758/2018 )

¶26

Maya Ram Ratre S/o Shri Janak Ram Ratre Aged About 46 Years Occupation - Asst. Teacher ( Panchayat ) ( Shiksha Karmi - Gr. III ) Government Primary School - Ranpur , Tahsil And Janpad Panchayat Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ( Arising Out Of The Order Dt. 28.3.2018 Passed In WPS No. 698/2018 )

¶27

12.Smt. Rajni Rathia W/o Shri Surendra Kumar Rathia Aged About 46 Years Occupation - Service , Presently Working As Assistant Teacher Panchayat ( Shiksha Karmi Gr. III ) Posted At Government Primary School, Bakaruma , Tahsil And Janpad Panchayat - Dharamjaigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ( Arising Out Of The Order Dt. 28.3.2018 Passed In WPS No. 731/2018 )

¶28

13.Smt. Lili Toppo W/o Shri Praful Lakda Aged About 45 Years Occupation - Service , Presently Working As Assistant Teacher - Panchayat ( Shiksha Karmi Gr. III) Posted At Government Primary School Dharampur ,tahsil And Janpad Panchayat Dharamjaigarh , District Raigarh. ( Arising Out Of The Order Dt. 28.3.2018 Passed In WPS No. 730/2018 )

¶29

14.Jai Prakash Singh Rathia D/o Shivraj Singh Rathia , Aged About 43 Years Occupation - Asst. Teacher ( Panchayat ) ( Shiksha Karmi - Gr. III ), Government Primary School Kekaranara ( Sisringa ) Tahsil And Janpad Panchayat - Dharamjaigarh District Chhattisgarh. ( Arising Out Of The Order Dt. 28.3.2018 Passed In WPS No. 811/2018 )

¶30

¶31

15.Raju Kujur S/o Balku Kujur Aged About 44 Years Occupation - Asst. Teacher ( Panchayat ) ( Shiksha Karmi - Gr. III ) Government Primary School - Junapara ( Khamhar ) Tahsil And Janpad Panchayat Dharamjaigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ( Arising Out Of The Order Dt. 28.3.2018 Passed In WPS No. 708/2018 )

¶32

16.Smt. Tej Bai W/o Shri Nirmal Ram And Daugher Of Shri Raghuram , Aged About 42 Years Occupation - Service , Presently Working As Assistant Teacher - Panchayat ( Shiksha Karmi Gr. III ) Posted At - Government Primary School , Deepapara , Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. Occupation - Asst. Teacher ( Panchayat ) ( Shiksha Karmi - Gr. III ) Government Primary School - Junapara ( Khamhar ) Tahsil And Janpad Panchayat Dharamjaigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ( Arising Out Of The Order Dt. 28.3.2018 Passed In WPS No. 787/2018 )

¶33

---- Appellants

¶34

Versus

¶35

The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development New Mantralaya, New Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶36

The Chief Executive Officer , Zila Panchayat Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶37

The Deputy Director, Department Of Panchayat District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶38

The Block Education Officer , Block - Dharamjaigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶39

The Chief Executive Officer , Janpad Panchayat Dharamjaigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶40

---- Respondents

¶41

Writ Appeal No. 662 of 2018

¶42

Ku. Indro Ekka W/o W/o Shri Prem Sai Panna Aged About 44 Years (After Marriage Smt. Indro Panna), Occupation Service Presently Working As Assistant Teacher Panchayat (Shiksha Karmi Grade-Ill) (L.B.), Posted At Government Primary School Raimer, Tahsil And Janpad Panchayat Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶43

---- Appellant

¶44

Versus

¶45

The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, New Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶46

The Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶47

The Deputy Director Department Of Panchayat, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶48

The Block Education Officer Officer, Block Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶49

The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶50

---- Respondents

¶51

¶52

Writ Appeal No. 667 of 2018

¶53

Smt. Tej Bai W/o W/o Shri Nirmal Ram Aged About 42 Years D/o Shri Raghuram, Occupation Services, Presently Working As Assistant Teacher Panchayat (Shiksha Karmi Gr. Ill) (L. B.), Posted At Government Primary School, Deepapara, Samniya, Tahsil And Janpad Panchayat Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶54

---- Appellant

¶55

Versus

¶56

The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, New Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶57

The Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶58

The Deputy Director Department Of Panchayat, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶59

The Block Education Officer Block Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶60

The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat- Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶61

---- Respondents

¶62

Writ Appeal No. 669 of 2018

¶63

Smt. Rajni Rathia W/o Shri Surendra Kumar Rathia Aged About 46 Years Occupation - Service, Presently Working As Assistant Teacher Panchayat (Shiksha Karmi Gr. III) (L.B.), Posted At Government Primary School , Bakaruma, Tahsil And Janpad Panchayat Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶64

---- Appellant

¶65

Versus

¶66

The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, New Mantralaya, New Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶67

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶68

The Deputy Director, Department Of Panchayat, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶69

The Block Education Officer Block Dharamjaigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶70

The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶71

---- Respondents

¶72

Writ Appeal No. 671 of 2018

¶73

Agneyus Kujur S/o Sukdev Kujur Aged About 44 Years Occupation - Assistant Teacher ( Panchayat ) ( Shiksha Karmi - Gr. III) ( L B) Government Primary School - Ganpatpur Tahsil And Janpad Panchayat Dharamjaigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

---- Appellant

Versus

The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development New Mantralaya, New Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶78

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶79

The Deputy Director , Department Of Panchayat District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶80

The Block Education Officer, Block Dharmajaigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶81

The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Dharamjaigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶82

---- Respondents

¶83

Writ Appeal No. 672 of 2018

¶84

Smt. Keso Bai @ Kesho Bai Aged About 46 Years Occupation- Service, Presently Working As- Assistant Teacher-Panchayat (Shiksha Karmi Grade III) (L.B.), Posted At- Government Primary School, Samniya, Tahsil And Janpad PanchayatDharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh).....(Appellants)

¶85

---- Appellant

¶86

Versus

¶87

The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, New Mantralaya, New Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶88

The Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Raigarh, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)

¶89

The Deputy Director, Department Of Panchayat, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)

¶90

The Block Education Officer, Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)

¶91

The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat- Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)

¶92

---- Respondents

¶93

Writ Appeal No. 673 of 2018

¶94

Smt. Urmila Ekka W/o Shri Irman Ekka, Aged About 43 Years Occupation Service, Presently Working As Assistant Teacher Panchayat (Shiksha Karmi Gr. III) (L.B.), Posted At Goverment Primary School, Pakhnakot, Tahsil And Janpad Panchayat Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶95

---- Appellant

¶96

Versus

¶97

The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, New Mantralaya, New Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶98

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶99

The Deputy Director, Department Of Panchayat, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶100

¶101

The Block Education Officer, Block Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶102

The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶103

---- Respondents

¶104

Writ Appeal No. 676 of 2018

¶105

Smt. Suhano Sidar W/o Vinay Pande Aged About 42 Years Occupation- Service, Presently Working As- Assistant Teacher, Panchayat (Shiksha Karmi Gr. III) (L.B.), Posted At- Government Primary School, Kapu, Thasil And Janpad PanchayatDharamjaigarh, District- Raigath, Chhattisgarh

¶106

---- Appellant

¶107

Versus

¶108

The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development , New Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶109

The Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat- Raigarh, Distict- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶110

The Deputy Director Department Of Panchayat, District- Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶111

The Block Education Officer Block- Dhramjaigarh District- Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶112

The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat- Dharamjaigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶113

---- Respondents

¶114

Writ Appeal No. 677 of 2018

¶115

Hetram Dansena S/o S/o Shri Shivpal Dansena Aged About 49 Years OccupationAsst. Teacher (Panchayat) (Shiksha Karmi- Grade Ill), (L. B.), Government Primary School Salka, Tahsil And Janpad Panchayat Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶116

---- Appellant

¶117

Versus

¶118

The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, New Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶119

The Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶120

The Deputy Director Department Of Panchayat District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶121

The Block Education Officer Block Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶122

The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶123

---- Respondents

¶124

¶125

Writ Appeal No. 679 of 2018

¶126

Bhoklu Ram Chakradhari S/o Shri Sunaram Chakradhari, Aged About 54 Years Occupation Asst. Teacher (Panchayat) (Shiksha Karmi Gr.III) (L.B.), Government Primary School- Gotiyapara Kumarta, Tahsil And Janpad Panchayat Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶127

---- Appellant

¶128

Versus

¶129

The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, New Mantralaya, New Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶130

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶131

The Deputy Director, Department Of Panchayat, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶132

The Block Education Officer, Block Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶133

The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶134

---- Respondents

¶135

Writ Appeal No. 680 of 2018

¶136

Smt. Lili Toppo W/o Shri Praful Lakda, Aged About 45 Years Occupation Service, Presently Working As Assistant Teacher Panchayat (Shiksha Karmi Gr. III) (L.B.), Posted At Government Primary School, Dharampur, Tahsil And Janpad Panchayat Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶137

---- Appellant

¶138

Versus

¶139

The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, New Mantralaya, New Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶140

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶141

The Deputy Director, Department Of Panchayat, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶142

The Block Education Officer, Block Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶143

The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶144

---- Respondents

¶145

Writ Appeal No. 681 of 2018

¶146

Raju Kujur S/o Balku Kujur Aged About 44 Years Occupation- Asst. Teacher (Panchayat) (Shiksha Karmi- Grade- Ill) Government Primary School -Junapara (Khamhar), Tahsil And Janpad Panchayat- Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

---- Appellant

Versus

The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, New Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶151

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶152

The Deputy Director, Department Of Panchayat, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶153

The Block Education Officer, Block- Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶154

The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat- Dharamjaigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶155

---- Respondents

¶156

Writ Appeal No. 682 of 2018

¶157

Jai Prakash Singh Rathia S/o Shivraj Singh Rathia Aged About 43 Years Occupation - Asst. Teacher ( Panchayat ) ( Shiksha Karmi - Gr. 3 ) Government Primary School Kekaranara ( Sisringa ) Tahsil And Janpad Panchayat Dharamjaigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶158

---- Appellant

¶159

Versus

¶160

The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development New Mantralaya New Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶161

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶162

The Deputy Director , Department Of Panchayat District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶163

The Block Education Officer, Block Dharamjaigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶164

The Chief Executive Officer , Janpad Panchayat Dharamjaigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶165

---- Respondents

¶166

Writ Appeal No. 683 of 2018

¶167

Budh Ram Ratre S/o Shri Hetram Ratre Aged About 54 Years Occupation- Asst. Teacher (Panchayat) (Shiksha Karmi- Grade.Ill), Government Primary SchoolTonahinara, Tahsil And Janpad Panchayat- Dharamjaigarh, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶168

---- Appellant

¶169

Versus

¶170

The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, New Mantralaya, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶171

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶172

The Deputy Director, Department Of Panchayat, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶173

¶174

The Block Education Officer, Block- Dharamjaigarh Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶175

The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat- Dharamjaigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶176

---- Respondents

¶177

Writ Appeal No. 690 of 2018

¶178

Maya Ram Ratre S/o Shri Janak Ram Ratre Aged About 46 Years Address - Occupation- Asst. Teacher (Panchayat) (Shiksha Karmi Grade III), (L.B.), Government Primary School Ranpur, Tahsil And Janpad Panchayat Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)......(Appellants)

¶179

---- Appellant

¶180

Versus

¶181

The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, New Mantralaya, New Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

¶182

The Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Raigarh, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)

¶183

The Deputy Director Department Of Panchayat, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)

¶184

The Block Education Officer Block Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)

¶185

The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Dharamjaigarh District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)

¶186

---- Respondents

¶187

Writ Appeal No. 698 of 2018

¶188

Smt. Lili Mariam Lakda W/o Shri Suleman Khess Aged About 42 Years Occupation - Service, Presently Working As Assistant Teacher Panchayat ( Shiksha Karmi Gr. Iii) (Lb) Posted At Government Primary School, Bandhanpur, Samniya, Tahsil And Janpad Panchayat Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶189

---- Appellant

¶190

Versus

¶191

The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development New Mantralaya New Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶192

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat , Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶193

The Deputy Director, Department Of Panchayat District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶194

The Block Education Officer, Block Dharamjaigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶195

The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Dharamjaigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶196

---- Respondents

¶197

For Appellants	: Shri A.N. Bhakta and Shri Vivek Bhakta, Advocates.
For Respondent/State	: Shri Prasun Bhaduri, Government Advocate.
For Respondent No.5	: Shri Mayank Kumar, Advocate.

¶198

¶199

Hon'ble Shri Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶200

Judgment on Board

¶201

01/10/2018

¶202

Per Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Chief Justice

¶203

1. I.A. No.01 of 2018 has been filed to condone delay of 102 days in instituting the Writ Appeal No.671 of 2018. For the reasons indicated in the application, the same is allowed. Delay is condoned.

¶204

2. Batch of writ appeals have been filed against the order dated 28.03.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge who decided all the writ applications by a common order since identical questions of law were raised.

¶205

3. The issue before the learned Single Judge was whether the decision of the Respondent-State authorities to effect recovery from the salary of the Assistant Teachers (Panchayat) dated 04.01.2018 was required to be interfered with or not.

¶206

4. Common facts are that all the Appellants were working as Assistant Teachers (Panchayat). On the basis of a so-called circular issued in the year 2011, they made a representation for grant of a particular pay scale. The pay scale demanded by them in the representation was Rs.9300-34800+4200/- when admittedly they were entitled to pay scale of Rs.5200-20200+2400/-.

¶207

5. It has also been noticed by the learned Single Judge that due undertakings were given by all these Appellants before the concerned authorities that in case of any discrepancy emerging or wrong fixation is found to have been made, the Government would be entitled to recover the excess payment so made.

¶208

6. From perusal of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, it is evident that the entitlement of pay scale was not contested at all. The only issue urged and argued before the Bench was whether the order of recovery could be set aside on

¶209

¶210

the plea taken by the Appellants that they were allowed and granted benefit of higher pay scale on the basis of a circular dated 02.11.2011 issued by the State of Chhattisgarh and the blame cannot be put on them for drawing any higher emoluments or salary.

¶211

7. The learned Single Judge, while deciding the issue has quoted from the undertakings given by the Appellants before the authorities in following words:-

¶212

“vr% mDr lanfHkZr ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; fcykliqj N-x- ds }kjk ekeyk Ø- WPS No. 1837/2014 fnukad 14-04-2014 ds ikfjr fu.kZ; ds ifjikyu esa izkFkhZ dks ØeksUur osrueku 4500&125&7000 ds vk/kkj ij iqujhf{kr osrueku 9300&34800$4200 ds vk/kkj ij osru fu/kkZj.k dj Hkqxrku djus dh d`ik djsaA Hkfo"; esa mDr osrueku ds vk/kkj ij ns; osru ij fdlh Hkh izdkj dh olwyh gksxh rks izkFkhZ olwyh nsus ds fy, rS;kj gS ;k osru ls dVkSrh djus ij izkFkhZ dks dksbZ vkifRr ugha gksxhA”

¶213

8. In the above noted background, the learned Single Judge, in the given facts, took into consideration the principles which have been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of High Court of Punjab & Haryana and Others v. Jagdev reported in (2016) 14 SCC 267 as well as the principles which have been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 . The learned Single Judge reproduced the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court laid down in the case of Jagdev (supra) in following words:-

¶214

“8. The order of the High Court has been challenged in these proceedings. From the record of the proceedings, it is evident that when the Respondent opted for the revised pay scale, he furnished an undertaking to the effect that he would be liable to refund any excess payment made to him. In the counter affidavit which has been filed by the Respondent in these proceedings, this position has been specifically [1]admitted. Subsequently, when the rules were revised and notified on 7-5-2003 it was found that a payment in excess had been made to the Respondent. On 18-2-2004, the excess payment was sought to be recovered in terms of the undertaking.

¶215

The submission of the Respondent, which found favour with the High Court, was that a payment which has been

¶216

¶217

made in excess cannot be recovered from an employee who has retired from the service of the state. This, in our view, will have no application to a situation such as the present where an undertaking was specifically furnished by the officer at the time when his pay was initially revised accepting that any payment found to have been made in excess would be liable to be adjusted. While opting for the benefit of the revised pay scale, the Respondent was clearly on notice of the fact that a future re-fixation or revision may warrant an adjustment of the excess payment, if any, made.

¶218

In State of Punjab & Ors etc. vs. Rafiq Masih this Court held that while it is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship where payments have mistakenly been made by an employer, in the following situations, a recovery by the employer would be impermissible in law:

¶219

(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service).

¶220

(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.

¶221

(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.

¶222

(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.

¶223

(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 balance of the employer's right to recover.”

¶224

The principle enunciated in proposition (ii) above cannot apply to a situation such as in the present case. In the present case, the officer to whom the payment was made in the first instance was clearly placed on notice that any payment found to have been made in excess would be required to be refunded. The officer furnished an undertaking while opting for the revised pay scale. He is bound by the undertaking.”

¶225

9. Stand of the counsel for the Appellants is that the principle laid down by the

¶226

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) would apply to them

¶227

¶228

because they belong to Class-III category of employees and while laying down the law, Hon'ble Apex Court had them in mind which is evident from Paragraph 10 (i) which has been reproduced from the Rafiq Masih's case.

¶229

10. In our opinion, the above Paragraph 10 (i) cannot be read in isolation. The subsequent circumstances also have to be kept in mind. Since all these Appellants are very much in service and they have a long way to go, therefore, the underlying principle that no person can be permitted to draw an advantage to which he is not entitled to, especially when such payments have been made from public funds will apply and the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jagdev (supra) squarely covers the cases in question.

¶230

11. We therefore do not intend to interfere with the order in any of these appeals. However, the Court is informed that the State authorities have decided to recover the amount in question in installments and not in one go taking into consideration their financial status and the impact it may have upon them or their family, if a lumpsum recovery is made.

¶231

12. All the appeals stand dismissed being devoid of merit.

¶232

Sd/Sd/-

¶233

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi) (Parth Prateem Sahu) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE

¶234

Anu

Chout Ram Tandan v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chout Ram Tandan v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv Kumar Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

S. N. Choubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Maa Karma Mahila Swa Sahayata Samuh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Devki Kumari Dinkar Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Purnima Dubey Vs Chhattisgarh Infra Structure Development Corporation

Smt. Nilima Jaiswal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh