Chandan Dadsena Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:8455

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 3789 of 2020

¶5

Chandan Dadsena S/o Shri Dasaru Ram Dadsena Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Patewa, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

¶6

--- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Health And Public Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

2 - The Chief Medical And Health Officer District Government Hospital Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

¶10

3 - Block Medical Officer Public Health Center Tumgaon Vikas Khand Mahasamund District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

¶11

--- Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner	:- Mr. Tanmoy Choudhury on behalf of Mr. T.K. Tiwari, Advocates
For Respondents/State	:- Mr. Sharad Mishra, P.L.

¶13

2

¶14

SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board

¶15

17.02.2026

¶16

1. The present writ petition has been filed against the letter dated 18/08/2020 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondent No. 3 i.e. Block Medical Officer, Public Health Center Tumgaon, Vikas Khand Mahasamund, District Mahasamund whereby recovery of Rs. 22,006/- has been directed against the petitioner.

¶17

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was given certain additional amount for execution of work in Ayushman Bharat Pradhan Mantri Jan Aarogya Yojana and Mukhyamantri Swasthya Beema Yojana, for which the prize was also awarded to the petitioner, however, all of a sudden, the recovery order has been issued against the petitioner vide Annexure P/1 wherein recovery has been sought wrongly on the ground that the amount was paid to the petitioner. It is further contended that the said order of recovery from the salary of the petitioner has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, therefore, it defeats the rule of natural justice.

¶18

3

¶19

3. Learned counsel for the State would support the impugned letter and submit that the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶20

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶21

5. A careful perusal of Annexure P/1 would show that no opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order of recovery, which is in violation of principles of natural justice and the same is liable to be quashed.

¶22

6. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned letter (Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed. However, the respondents are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

¶23

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶24

Harneet

Chandan Dadsena v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandan Dadsena 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

R.B. Tripathi Vs Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co. Limited

Awadhesh Kumar Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shrikrishna Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ghanshyam Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Uttam Kumar Yadav, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Prachi Yadu Vs State of Chhattisgarh