Nojendra Kumar Routiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:7626

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 669 of 2020

¶6

1 - Nojendra Kumar Routiya S/o- Hari Vallabh Singh Aged About 45 Years Lecturer (L.B.), Government Higher Secondary School Eragoan, District Kondagaon, R/o Village Eragaon Tahsil Keshkal District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

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

¶10

2 - District Education Officer Kondagaon, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Kondagaon, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh

¶12

4 - Block Education Officer Keshkal, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Shri Anil Tawadkar, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri Amit Buxy, Deputy GA with Shri Anmol Sharma, Panel Lawyer.

¶15

Digitally signed by KRISHNA KRISHNA KUMAR KUMAR BARVE BARVE Date: 2026.02.12 15:16:55 +0530

¶16

2

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, J

¶18

Order On Board

¶19

11/02/2026 :

¶20

In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 14.11.2019 (Annexure P/1) whereby certain amount of recovery has been directed to be recovered from the petitioner herein.

¶21

Mr. Anil Tawadkar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 14.11.2019 (Annexure P/1) has been passed by the Block Education Officer, Keshkal, District – Kondagaon to all the Principals, Headmasters and Education Co-ordinators concerned, but no notice with regard to any recovery of amount has been issued to the petitioner.

¶22

On the other hand, Mr. Amit Buxy, learned counsel for the Respondents/State would support the impugned order dated 14.11.2019 (Annexure P/1) and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and went through the record with utmost circumspection.

¶24

A careful perusal of the impugned order dated 14.11.2019 (Annexure-P/1) would show that the same has been issued by the Block Education Officer, Keshkal, District Kondagon to all the Principals, Headmasters and Education Co-ordinators concerned, but no individual notice has been issued to the petitioner herein directing recovery of the amount allegedly due against him. Therefore, at this stage, this writ petition against an internal communication cannot be entrained.

¶25

3

¶26

However, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to file reply and contest the recovery notice, if any, issued to him at subsequent point of time and he is also at liberty to question the same in accordance with law. Further, it is made clear that before passing any order of recovery against the petitioner, notice be served to the petitioner with regard to the same and the petitioner also be granted reasonable time to respond the said notice.

¶27

With the aforesaid observation/direction, the Writ Petition stands finally

¶28

disposed of . No costs.

¶29

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶30

Barve

Nojendra Kumar Routiya v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nojendra Kumar Routiya 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

Surendra Kumar Bansal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Punita Darshan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Roshan Aara Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Dipika Dubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajeev Vaidya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Krishna Kumar Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh