Smt. Arti Choubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:50246

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI

¶6

Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI

¶7

WPS No. 10045 of 2025

¶8

Smt. Arti Choubey W/o Chandrashekhar Choubey, Aged About 56 Years Working As Teacher (L.B.), Govt. Middle School, Darba, Block - Arang, District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

versus

¶11

State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶12

The Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶13

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶14

The District Education Officer, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶15

The Block Education Officer, Arang, District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶16

... Respondent(s)

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr. Gautam Khetrapal, Advocate with Mr. Rudra Prasad Dubey, Advocate

¶18

For Respondents : Mr. Arvind Dubey, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶19

Order on Board

¶20

08/10/2025

¶21

Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-

¶22

2

¶23

“10.1.That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside the impugned recovery order dated 09.07.2025 (Annexure P-1).

¶24

10.2. That any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may be given.”

¶25

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is working as Teacher (LB) and posted at Government Middle School, Ameri, Block Arang, District Raipur. Respondent No.5 issued letter dated 9.7.2025 asking the petitioner to submit her consent for recovery of excess payment of salary made to her to be recovered in installments. He submits that before arriving at conclusion for recovery of excess amount from the salary of petitioner, no show-cause notice was issued nor any opportunity of hearing was granted. Petitioner has already submitted representation before respondent No.5 for not recovering any amount from her salary but till date no decision is taken on the same. He submits that in the given facts of the case, this writ petition may be disposed of permitting petitioner to submit fresh representation before respondents No.4 & 5, raising grievances as raised in this petitioner, and in turn, respondent Nos.4 and 5 may be directed to decide the same within specified time.

¶26

3

¶27

Per contra, learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner. He, however, submits that as the petitioner is not pressing this writ petition on merits and only seeking a direction against respondent No.4 and 5 to consider and decide representation to be submitted by petitioner, he is having no objection to said prayer. If any such representation is submitted by petitioner, the same will be considered and decided strictly in accordance with law.

¶28

I have heard learned counsel for respective parties and perused the documents.

¶29

Perusal of the letter dated 9.7.2025 would show that during inspection of service book of petitioner, it is found by the office of respondent No.5 that from 1.5.2013 till the date of issuance of letter, petitioner is being paid salary in excess of her entitlement. Consequently, letter dated 9.7.2015 has been issued by respondent No.5 calling upon her to submit her consent for recovery of excess payment in installments from her salary. It is nowhere mentioned in this letter that prior to taking decision of recovery of amount, show-cause notice was issued to petitioner or any opportunity of hearing was given.

¶30

Considering the facts and circumstances of case, submissions of learned counsel for respective parties, nature of grievance raised that petitioner was not afforded any

¶31

4

¶32

opportunity before coming to conclusion that excess payment is made to petitioner quantifying the amount therein, as is evident from letter dated 9.7.2025, I find it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition permitting the petitioner to submit fresh detailed representation before respondents No.4 and 5 for redressal of her grievance as raised in this writ petition.

¶33

At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner submits that till date no recovery has been effected from salary of petitioner, therefore, respondents be restrained from deducting amount from her salary till decision on the representation.

¶34

Consequently, this writ petition stands disposed of permitting the petitioner to submit fresh detailed representation before respondent No.4 and 5 within ten days from today for redressal of her grievance as raised in this writ petition. If petitioner submits such representation, respondent No.4 and 5 shall consider and decide the same within a period of four weeks from the date its recept, in accordance with law after providing opportunity of hearing to petitioner.

¶35

Till decision is taken on representation to be filed by petitioner, no recovery from salary of petitioner, as mentioned in letter dated 9.7.2025 (Annexure P-1), shall be made.

¶36

Certified copy as per rules.

¶37

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶38

roshan/-

Smt. Arti Choubey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Arti Choubey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sharma Agencies and Another Vs Abdul Salim and Others

Durgesh Pal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Nirmala Yadav Vs Amit Kumar Verma

Laxmi Prasad and Anr. Vs Ghasiya Ram and Ors.

Bharthari Lal Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Indra Kumar Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh