Allowed

Shiv Kumar Adile and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC4 Mar 2022WPS/2459/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh set aside an order for recovery of excess payment made to school teachers because the respondent failed to issue a Show Cause Notice or provide an opportunity of hearing before passing the order. Petitioners were permitted to seek other reliefs via representation.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 03.12.2011 is set aside; CEO at liberty to proceed further; petitioners permitted to file representation regarding weightage of increment.

Shiv Kumar Adile and Ors. Vs State of… — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

WPS No. 2459 of 2012

¶4

Shiv Kumar Adile, son of Dhaniram Adile, aged about 37 years, Teacher (Panchayat), Middle School Junkidih, Block Pondi Uproda, District Korba (CG)

¶5

Adhar Singh Pulast, son of Ansai, aged about 48 years, Teacher (Panchayat), Middle School Dulkapur, Block Pondi Uproda, District Korba (CG)

¶6

Bhavdip Kumar Dubey, son of Laxmi Prasad Dubey, aged about 37 years, Teacher (Panchayat), Middle School, Krishnanagar, Dipka, Block Katchora, Distrcit Korba (CG)

¶7

Geeta Yadav, wife of Dashrath Lal Yadav, aged about 40 years, Teacher (Panchayat), Middle School, Jhabar, Block Katchora, District Korba (CG)

¶8

----Petitioners

¶9

State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Panchayat Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (CG)

¶10

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Korba, District Korba (CG)

¶11

---- Respondents

¶12

For Petitioners : Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents/State : Shri Ali Asgar, Dy AG

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board

¶14

04.03.2022

¶15

Shri Ajay Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that respondent-2 had issued Annexure P1 order dated 03.12.2011, whereby it is ordered for recovery of excess payment. Before issuing Annexure P1 order, or order dated 19.08.2011 referred in Annexure P1, no notice was served upon petitioners and impugned order has been passed without giving opportunity of hearing and therefore, it be set aside. He contended that some of other Shiksha Karmis also challenged recovery proceedings issued by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Jilla Panchayat, Durg and CEO Janpad Panchayat, Dondi, before this Court in WPS-1352 of 2012 and WPS-1354 of 2012, which were partly allowed and order of recovery was set aside. Similar order may be passed in this case also, as respondent-2 has not issued any prior notice

¶16

Wps 2459 of 2012

¶17

¶18

calling explanation and providing opportunity of hearing before passing an order for recovery of excess payment made to the petitioners. He contended that for the other relief, petitioners may be permitted to file representation before respondent-1.

¶19

Shri Ali Asgar, learned State counsel would submit that earlier, State Government ordered for fixation of pay granting weightage of increments considering length of service, vide order/circular dated 01.04.2007. That was clarified subsequently, vide notification dated 28.01.2011, hence, order Annexure P1 was issued. He also submits that in pursuance of policy decision taken by State Government, Shiksha Karmis, who completed 8 years of service as on July, 2018 have been absorbed in School Education Department. However, he does not dispute submission of learned counsel for the petitioners of passing order dated 18.08.2021 and 19.08.2021 in WPS-1352 of 2012 and WPS-1354 of 2012 respectively.

¶20

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused pleadings and documents placed on record.

¶21

In reply to Writ Petition, respondents have not filed any document or notice, if any, issued to petitioners before passing order Annexure P1 for recovery of excess payment, made to the petitioners. Law with regard to recovery of any excess payment made to an employee is very much clear. Before issuing any order for recovery of excess payment, Show Cause Notice is required to be given enabling the persons/petitioners, to give explanation as to why excess amount paid be not recovered from them. Admittedly, respondent-2 has neither given Show Cause Notice, nor any opportunity of hearing, before issuing order Annexure P1 dated 03.12.2011.

¶22

Wps 2459 of 2012

¶23

¶24

For the foregoing, impugned order dated 03.12.2011 (Annexure P1) is set aside. CEO, Jilla Panchayat, Durg will be at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law.

¶25

Petitioners will be at liberty to file representation before respondent-1 with respect to prayer to grant benefit of weightage of increment in view of earlier Circular dated 18.04.2007 if any grievance still survives. If any such representation is filed before respondent-1, the same shall be decided in accordance with law, expeditiously.

¶26

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) JUDGE

¶27

padma

Shiv Kumar Adile and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Kumar Adile and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahesh Prasad Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr. Vs Balram Yadav And Anr.

Ramesh Kumar Yadav (Yadu) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Mahima Sharma Vs Gaurav Tyagi

Kejharam Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhagwanta Prasad Mandle Vs State of Chhattisgarh