Allowed¶28

Prem Shankar Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC21 Jul 2025WPS/949/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Recovery of excess payment; withdrawal of pay scale; reduction of pay; violation of natural justice; opportunity of hearing; Annexure P/1; pay fixation 20.09.2018; regularisation 30.12.2008; contingency paid employee; absorbed wine shop salesman; Excise Constable; Chhattisgarh Excise Department; Writ Appeal No. 174/2022 dismissed 20.06.2022; WPS No. 5549/2021 bunch; quashing of recovery order; liberty to pass fresh order after hearing.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the order of recovery of alleged excess payment and reduction of pay (Annexure P/1), with liberty reserved to the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with the principle of natural justice after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. ¶28

Prem Shankar Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

-1-

2025:CGHC:35192

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 949 of 2021

¶6

Prem Shankar Singh S/o- Late Dalgar Singh Aged About 56 Years Working On The Post Of Excise Constable, R/o- Village- Podi, Post- Ketka, Surajpur, District- Surajpur (Chhattisgarh).

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1- State of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Department of Excise, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, New Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

2 - The Excise Commissioner Aabkari Bhavan, Chhokara Nala, Labhandi Raipur, DistrictRaipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

3 - District Excise Officer Baikunthpur, District- Koriya, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh.

¶12

... Respondent(s)

¶13

(Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate For State : Mr. Topi Lal Bareth, Panel Lawyer

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

22.07.2025

¶18

1. The petitioner was working as Sales Man in the Wine Shop run by the erstwhile

¶19

Government of Madhya Pradesh and in pursuance of policy decision, the Sales

¶20

-2-

¶21

Men working in the Wine Shop were absorbed with the Excise Department. Accordingly, the petitioner was appointed as contigency paid employee for 89 days vide order dated 07.05.1994 on the pay scale of Rs. 950-1530/- and thereafter pay scale was revised vide order dated 31.10.2000. The services of the petitioners were regularized vide order dated 30.12.2008 and after pay fixation dated 20.09.2018, they were drawing pay scale of Rs. 3050-75-3950-80-4590/-. The respondent authorities were paying salary to the petitioner regularly as per pay fixation. Thereafter, all of a sudden vide order dated 19.08.2021, the pay scale granted to the petitioner was withdrawn and recovery of excess payment amount paid to the petitioner from 20.09.2018 was ordered.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the recovery order and reduction of pay were passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner which is in violation of principle of natural justice. The order passed by the authority reducing the pay and the order for recovery are subject to challenge before this Court in bunch of writ petitions (WPS No. 5549/2021 and other connected cases). The Coordinate Bench has disposed of the aforesaid writ petitions reserving liberty in favour of respondent authorities to take appropriate action, if so advised, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Against said order, Writ Appeal No. 174/2022 and other writ appeals were filed which were dismissed by Hon’ble Division Bench vide order dated 20.06.2022. Hon’ble the Division Bench while dismissing the writ appeal has held as under:-

¶23

-3-

¶24

“7. Having regard to the sequence of events as noted above, when, admittedly, writ petitioners suffered civil consequences and in effect, recovery is proposed to be made, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Single Judge that an opportunity ought to have been granted to the writ petitioners before making the adverse endorsement in the service book, cannot be faulted with. It is also noted that right of the appellants was reserved to take appropriate action in the matter in accordance with law after granting opportunity to the writ petitioners. ”

¶25

1. Learned State counsel would not oppose the said legal proposition settled in above referred cases.

¶26

1. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, order of recovery of alleged

¶27

excess amount paid to the petitioner and reduction of pay vide order dated 19.01.2021 (Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed reserving liberty in favour of the respondents that if they, so advised, may initiate proceedings in accordance with principle of natural justice giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing any order.

¶28

1. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is allowed .

¶29

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶30

NADIM

Prem Shankar Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Shankar Singh 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

Smt. Rajmat Masiyare Vs State Govt. Of Chhattisgarh

Rakesh Verma Vs Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation

Smt. Geeta Tiwari Vs The Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited

Sushma Patel Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Anjali Patel Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Dileram Kathe Vs State of Chhattisgarh