Dismissed¶47

Prakash Chand Sahu and Ors. v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC10 Jul 2024WPS/4962/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Shiksha Karmi Grade-II; excess payment recovery; refund with 18% interest; mandamus; maintainability; premature petition based on apprehension; no recovery ordered or proposed by State; liberty to file fresh writ petition; Chhattisgarh High Court Bilaspur; WPS No. 4962 of 2012; order dated 28.01.2012 circular; 20.12.2007 increment order; Block Education Officer Berla; dismissed; NAFR.

What did the court decide?

Save for the salary slip, no document was placed on record to show that any decision was taken by the State to recover the excess amount from the petitioners. ¶42

Prakash Chand Sahu and Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors. — Chhattisgarh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 4962 of 2012

¶5

1. Prakash Chand Sahu And Ors. S/o Vishram Sahu Aged About 34 Years Shiksha Karmi Grade-2, Govt. M.School Sankra, P.S. Berla, Dist. Bemetara C.G., Chhattisgarh

¶6

2. Chumman Lal Sahu S/o Lakhan Lal Sahu Aged About 40 Years Siksha Karmi Grade-2, Govt. M.School, Kusmi, P.S. Berla, Dist. Bemetara C.G., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶7

3. Madan Mohan Sahu S/o Sewa Ram Sahu Aged About 41 Years Shiksha Karmi Grade-2, Govt. M.School Kudmuda, P.S. Berla, Dist. Bemetara C.G., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶8

4. Rajesh Kumar Verma S/o Rajeshwar Prasad Verma Aged About 43 Years Shiksha Karmi Grade-2, Govt. M.School Jamgaon, P.S. Berla Dist. Bemetara C.G., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶9

5. Satanand Sahu S/o Kanhaiya Lal Sahu Aged About 42 Years Shiksha Karmi Grade-2, Govt. M.School Baherghat, P.S. Berla, Dist. Bemetara, C.G., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶10

6. Ishwari Prasad Sahu S/o Uma Shankar Sahu Aged About 42 Years Shiksha Karmi Grade-2, Govt. M.School Borsi, P.S. Berla, Dist. Bemetara C.G., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶11

7. Smt. Nageshwari Verma Shiksha Karmi Grade-2, Govt. M.School Borsi, P.S. Berla, Dist. Bemetara C.G., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶12

8. Gandhi Ram Sahu S/o Shankar Lal Sahu Aged About 41 Years Shiksha Karmi Grade-2, Govt. M.School Danganiya B, P.S. Berla Dist. Bemetara C.G., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶13

9. Chowa Ram Sahu S/o Dhanwar Sahu Aged About 41 Years Shiksha Karmi Grade-2, Govt. M.School Mudpar, P.S. Berla, Dist. Bemetara C.G., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶14

10. Dinesh Kumar Lahre S/o Atma Ram Lahre Aged About 36 Years Shiksha Karmi Grade-2, Govt. M.School Jamgaon, P.S. Berla, Dist. Bemetara C.G., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶15

11. Human Lal Dewangan S/o Bhuneshwar Prasad Dewangan Aged About 47 Years Shiksha Karmi Grade-2, Govt. M.School Kudmuda, P.S. Berla, Dist. Bemetara C.G., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶16

12. Jalesh Kumar Jangde S/o Khorbahra Prasad Jangde Aged About 36 Years Shiksha Karmi Grade-2, Govt. M.School Tivraiya, P.S. Berla, Dist. Bemetara, C.G., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶17

13. Smt. Raina Ghritlahre W/o Ram Kumar Ghritlahre Aged About 34 Years Shiksha Karmi Grade-2, Govt. M.School Borsi, P.S. Berla, Dist. Bemetara C.G., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

---- Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. S/o Thru The Secrty., Panchy. And Rural Deptt. Dks Bhawan P.S. City Kotwali Raipur C.G., Chhattisgarh

¶22

2. C.E.O. Zila Panchy. Durg P.S. And Dist. Durg C.G., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶23

3. Chief Exe. Oficer Janpad Panchy. Berla P.S. Berla Dist. Bemetara C.G., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶24

4. Distt. Education Officer Bemetara C.G., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶25

5. Block Education Officer Block And P.S. Berla Dist. Bemetara C.G., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶26

---- Respondents

¶27

(Cause-title is taken from Case Information System)

¶28

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioners : Mr. K. P. Sahu, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, P.L.

¶29

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶30

Order on Board

¶31

11.07.2024

¶32

1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have sought the following relief(s):-

¶33

10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus setting aside the order dated 28.01.12 (Anenxure P-1) issued by respondents.

¶34

10.2 That this Hon’ble Court pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 5 not to recover the excess amount and refund the excess amount which has been recovered from the petitioner with 18% P. A.

¶35

10.3 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate.

¶36

2. Facts of the present case are that the petitioners were appointed to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III and they were promoted to Shiksha Karmi Grade-II. Thereafter, an order was issued by the State Government on 20.12.2007 and a

¶37

¶38

decision was taken to grant one increment after completion of two years. A circular was issued on 28.01.2012 according to which only the teachers who had worked on the post for the last 8 years would be entitled to the benefit and weightage would be extended to them only.

¶39

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per the department, excess payment was made to the petitioners from the year 2007 and a decision was taken to recover the amount of excess payment. He further submitted that respondent No. 5 may be restrained from recovering the excess amount and refund the recovered amount.

¶40

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State would oppose. She submitted that the petitioners have not placed any document to demonstrate any order of recovery or adjustment has been passed by the State Government. She further submitted that the petitioners have not placed any document to demonstrate whether such action has been proposed by the State or not, thus this petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶41

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

¶42

6. Though the petitioners have sought a direction to respondent No. 5 to not recover the amount of excess payment and refund the amount so deducted, in the entire petition, except the salary slip, no document has been placed to the effect that any decision has been taken by the State to recover the excess amount. The State in its return has categorically stated in para 7 that:-

¶43

7 . It is submitted that the main grievance projected by the petitioners is with respect to recovery of excess amount which

¶44

¶45

was granted to them by way of extending the benefit of revised pay scale with effect from 01/04/2007. It is respectfully submitted that as per the official records, no recovery of the alleged excess amount has been made from the petitioners. It is respectfully submitted that in the instant petition, the petitioners nowhere have stated as to how much amount has been proposed to be recovered from them. It is respectfully submitted that the present petition has been filed by the petitioner merely on apprehension basis and therefore, the present petition is not maintainable and accordingly is liable to be dismissed at the threshold.

¶46

7. Taking into consideration the facts of the present case and the reply filed by the State, no case is made out for interference.

¶47

8. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed . However, the petitioners would be at liberty to file a fresh petition if the cause of action still survives / subsists.

¶48

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶49

Ajinkya

Prakash Chand Sahu and Ors. v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Chand Sahu and Ors. v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Singh Vs South Eastern Coalfields Ltd.

Shiv Dayal Rai Vs South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. and Ors.

Deepti Namdeo and Others Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Rajendra Kumar Soni @ Rajendra Prasad Soni Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Bhadauria Suneet Singh Vs Coal India Limited Through Chairman Cum Managing Direcrtor and Ors.

Lakesh Kumar Chandradev Vs State Bank Of India And Ors.