Ms. Satya Kurre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:21572

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 3780 of 2026

¶6

Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.05.09 11:07:57 +0530

¶7

Ms. Satya Kurre D/o Shri K.P. Kurre Aged About 41 Years Posted As Assistant Professor (Commerce) In The College Of The Veerangna Awanti Bai Lodhi Government College Patharia, District- Mungeli (C.G.), R/o Pipal Chowk Talapara, Bilaspur, Police Station Civil Line, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) Pin 495001, Mb. 9826776692

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Higher Education Department, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) Pin 492002

¶11

2. Commissioners Officer Incharge In The Commissioner Of The Higher Education Department, Block-3, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) Pin 492002

¶12

3. The Principal Of The Veerangna Awanti Bai Lodhi Government College Patharia, District- Mungeli (C.G.) Pin 495335

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay K. Deshmukh, Advocate For Respondents/ : Mr. Aditya Tiwari, P.L. State

¶15

2

¶16

Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

Order on Board

08/05/2026

Heard.

The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

¶21

“10.1 Your Lordships may be please to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the Annexure P/3 order dated 19/07/2024 passed by respondent R/2 the Commissioner Higher Education Department and letter dated 24/04/2026 Ann. P/9 issued by the respondent R/3 Principal.

¶22

10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may please to set aside the order/letter dated 19/07/2024 Ann. P/3 passed by the respondent R/2 Commissioner Higher Education Department. And letter dated 24/04/2026 Ann. P/9 issued by the respondent R/3 Principal.

¶23

10.3 Your Lordships may be please to issue writ/writs against the respondent department to not take any action on the ground of Annexure P/3 dated 19/07/2024 passed by the respondent R/2 Commissioner.

¶24

10.4 Your Lordships may be please to issue writ/writs

¶25

3

¶26

against the respondent department to not take any action on the ground of the Annexure P/9 dated 24/04/2026 against the present petitioner issued by the respondent R/3 Principal.

¶27

10.5 Your Lordships may be please to grant any other relief as your lordship may deem fit.”

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in terms of the Circular dated 30.03.2010 (Annexure P/1), Assistant Professors possessing an M.Phil. degree were entitled to three Advanced Pay Increments (API). It is further submitted that during the service tenure of the petitioner, respondent No. 1 issued a subsequent Circular dated 25.06.2024 (Annexure P/2), whereby Assistant Professors possessing an M.Phil. degree were made entitled to only two Advanced Pay Increments instead of three. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had already been granted three Advanced Pay Increments in accordance with the earlier Circular dated 30.03.2010 from the date of her appointment i.e. 12.11.2012, and the same continued for a considerable period. However, thereafter respondent No. 2/Commissioner issued the Circular/Order dated 19.07.2024 (Annexure P/3), directing recovery of one excess increment already granted to the petitioner from the date of appointment. It is contended that the Circular dated 25.06.2024 (Annexure P/2) nowhere provides that the revised entitlement of two Advanced Pay Increments would apply retrospectively to Assistant

¶29

4

¶30

Professors appointed prior to the issuance of the said Circular or that the increments already granted pursuant to the earlier Circular dated 30.03.2010 would be withdrawn or recovered. Learned counsel submits that despite the aforesaid position, respondent No. 2 has arbitrarily and illegally issued the impugned Circular/Order dated 19.07.2024 directing recovery, which is contrary to the letter and spirit of the Circular dated 25.06.2024. It is further submitted that acting upon the said order, respondent No. 3 has also initiated recalculation and recovery proceedings against similarly situated Assistant Professors and issued the communication dated 24.04.2026 (Annexure P/9) against the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed challenging the Circular/Order dated 19.07.2024 (Annexure P/3) issued by respondent No. 2 and the communication dated 24.04.2026 (Annexure P/9).

¶31

Learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the impugned action has been taken strictly in accordance with law and departmental instructions and no illegality or arbitrariness has been committed by the respondents.

¶32

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶33

On perusal of Annexure P/9, which is the impugned communication whereby the petitioner has been directed to

¶34

5

¶35

submit his response regarding recovery of one increment, it appears that the respondents had already taken a decision with regard to recovery and the said communication merely sought the petitioner’s opinion in relation thereto.

¶36

Further, learned State counsel has failed to demonstrate from Annexure P/9 or from the material available on record that any prior notice or effective opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before arriving at such decision of recovery, despite the fact that the petitioner had acquired the M.Phil. Degree and had been granted the benefit in terms of the earlier policy.

¶37

From the impugned communication, it further appears that the action has been taken in clear violation of the principles of natural justice, as no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner and the communication contained in Annexure P/9 reflects a predetermined mind on the part of the respondents.

¶38

It is also trite law that adherence to the principles of natural justice is of paramount importance, particularly when an administrative or quasi-judicial authority takes a decision affecting the rights of the parties. Any action taken with a premeditated or predetermined mindset, without objective evaluation of facts, is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

¶39

Since the impugned communication dated 24.04.2026 (Annexure P/9), has been issued to the petitioner to submit his response, however, from the communication itself it appears that they have

¶40

6

¶41

already made up their mind to recover the amount that too without following the principles of natural justice and without affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the impugned communication dated 24.04.2026 (Annexure P/9), deserves to be and is hereby quashed. However, it is made clear that the respondents shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, if so advised.

¶42

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petition stands allowed to the above extent.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

(Bibhu Datta Guru)

¶45

JUDGE

¶46

Jyoti

Ms. Satya Kurre v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms. Satya Kurre 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Anjana Tirkey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tej Kumar Tirkey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Satish Shukla Vs Shri Ajit Vasant

Khido Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Seraphinus Minj Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mithilesh Prasad Vs P.S. Mishra