Santosh Kumar Jayswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 1298 of 2021

¶5

1 - Santosh Kumar Jayswal S/o Shri M.D. Jayswal, Aged About 42 Years Working As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Primary School Kumharras, Block Dantewada, District South Bastar Dantewada (Chhattisgarh), District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s)

¶6

REKHA SINGH

¶7

versus

¶8

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

2 - District Education Officer, Dantewada, District South Bastar Dantewada (Chhattisgarh), District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh

¶10

3 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Dantewada, District South Bastar Dantewada (Chhattisgarh), District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh

¶11

4 - Deputy Director, Local Nidhi Sampariksak, Division Bastar, District Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶12

5 - Block Education Officer, Block Dantewada, District South Bastar Dantewada (Chhattisgarh), District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr. Uday Pratap Singh Sahu, Advocate For State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. For respondent No.3 : Mr. Adarsh Rajput, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. R.S.Baghel, Advocate

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

24.07.2025

¶17

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

¶18

“(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to restrain the respondent from making further recovery and to refund the recovered amount with 18% interest and quash the recovery order dated 01.10.2019 (Annexure P-1), in the interest of justice.

¶19

(ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case including cost of the petition, may also be granted.”

¶20

-2-

¶21

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that initially, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher at Government Primary School, Patelpara, District Dantewada (C.G.) vide order dated 26.09.2006. He would further submit that respondent No.5 issued an order of recovery to the tune of Rs.4,39,878/- on the ground that the salary of the petitioner was wrongly fixed at higher pay scale in the month of May, 2014 and it continued till June, 2019. He would contend that the petitioner is a Class-III employee and the mistake of the department was detected after 5 years and thus, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered with the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, 2015 AIR SCW 501. He would further contend that the respondents have recovered few installments from salary of the petitioner.

¶22

On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by Mr.Sahu. They would submit that the salary of the pay scale of the petitioner was wrongly fixed by the department and when this fact came within the knowledge of the officials of the department, immediately thereafter, order of recovery was issued. He would submit that present petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

¶24

In the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court

¶25

3

¶26

held as under:-

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

(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.

¶30

(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.

¶31

(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.”

¶32

In the present case, the petitioner is a Class-III employee. The pay

¶33

scale of the petitioner was fixed by the department itself and excess payment was made from May, 2014 and it continued till June, 2019 and an order was passed on 01.10.2019 after period of 5 years. It is also not in dispute that there was no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner and thus, the case is squarely covered with the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra) . Accordingly, order dated 01.10.2019 (Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed. The respondents authorities are directed to refund the recovered amount, if any, within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶34

With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present petition is disposed of.

¶35

Sd/(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶36

Rekha

Santosh Kumar Jayswal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar Jayswal 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

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramashanker Gupta Vs Shri Suraj Pal Gupta

Smt. Praveen Vs South Eastern Coal Field Ltd.

Jageshwar Singh Dhruv Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Amir Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Subhash Sarkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nishi Shukla Vs State of Chhattisgarh