RAIPUR: The Chhattisgarh high court on Wednesday dismissed a writ appeal filed by the State, upholding a single-judge bench's order that had quashed a recovery notice issued to 26 Class III employees for alleged excess payment during their service tenure. The High Court also directed the State to refund the recovered amount with 6% interest per annum if the refund was delayed beyond three months from the original order date.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru heard the appeal filed by the State of Chhattisgarh and other police authorities against the order passed by a single-judge bench on 29 January 2025.
The case involves 26 Class III employees, including Divya Kumar Sahu, Neeran Lal, and others, all residing at the STF Headquarter in Baghera, Durg. They had challenged a recovery notice dated 10 October 2019, which sought to recover excess payments made due to incorrect pay fixation.
Earlier, on 27 November 2019, the single-judge bench had issued an interim order staying the recovery notice. Despite this, the State proceeded with the recovery of the amount from the employees. On 29 January 2025, the single-judge bench allowed the writ petition and instructed the State to refund the recovered amount within three months, with 6% interest if the deadline was missed.
Yashwant Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General for the State, argued that while the State was ready to refund the recovered amount, the payment of interest would impose a significant financial burden.
Abhishek Pandey, counsel for the employees, submitted that the appellants had recovered the amount despite an interim stay order. He argued that the employees were entitled to the recovered amount along with 6% interest as ordered by the single-judge bench.
After reviewing the arguments and documents, the High Court observed that the petitioners were Class III employees and that, as per a Supreme Court decision in State of Punjab & Ors Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors, recovery from such employees is not permissible.
The bench found no illegality or infirmity in the single-judge's order. It noted that the State had recovered the amount despite an interim stay and had not refunded it within the stipulated three-month period. The writ appeal was therefore dismissed, with no order on costs.
Start a Conversation
Post comment