SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 23318

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS, J
T.P. Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited – Respondent
WPS No. 5136 of 2024



Recovery of excess payment from an employee who obtained benefit by concealment of facts is permissible if employee is not due for retirement within one year; recovery must be in proportionate installments to avoid hardship.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Service Law - Higher Pay Scale - Recovery of Excess Payment - Principles of Natural Justice - Concealment of Material Facts - Circulars dated 30.01.1989, 11.01.1997, 19.07.2005, 29.12.2023 - Requirement of three months account training for promotion to Office Assistant Grade-I / grant of higher pay scale - Recovery permissible if employee not due for retirement within one year (State of Punjab & Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Others (2015) 4 SCC 334 and Union of India vs. N.M. Raut & Ors 2024 INSC 1042).

(B) An employee who obtains a benefit by concealment of material facts is not entitled to any relief - The principle that equity requires clean hands applies - Recovery order is not violative of natural justice if an inquiry was conducted and opportunity of hearing given.

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was appointed as a Peon in 1985, promoted to Office Assistant Grade-3 in 1990, granted first higher pay scale in 1999, and second higher pay scale in 2008. The second higher pay scale was granted despite the petitioner not having completed the compulsory three months account training required for promotion/higher pay scale. The petitioner completed the training only in 2023 (third attempt). In 2024, after a committee inquiry, the respondent issued a recovery order for the excess payment made from 2008. The petitioner challenged the order by way of a writ petition.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the circulars clearly require account training for grant of higher pay scale. The petitioner knew that he had not cleared the training in 2008, thus he obtained the benefit by concealment of facts. Such concealment vitiates everything and the petitioner is not entitled to relief. Applying the principles of Rafiq Masih and N.M. Raut, recovery is permissible because the petitioner is not due for retirement within one year (retirement age 62). However, the court directed that the recovery installments should be proportionate to the petitioner's salary to avoid inconvenience.

Issues: (1) Whether the impugned recovery order dated 13.08.2024 is legal and justified. (2) Whether the recovery order violates principles of natural justice. (3) Whether the recovery after significant delay is arbitrary and unjust. (4) Whether there was discrimination against the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the petitioner's concealment of the fact that he lacked the required account training disentitles him from any equitable relief. Recovery is not barred under Rafiq Masih as the petitioner is not retiring within one year. The recovery order was based on a proper inquiry and opportunity of hearing, hence no violation of natural justice. The court upheld the recovery but tempered it by requiring proportionate installments. Result : Writ petition dismissed. Interim order vacated. Recovery to be in proportionate monthly installments.

CAV Order

1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 13.08.2024 passed by respondent No. 6/ Chief Engineer (Generation) Dr. Shayama Prashad Mukharjee Power Generation Station, Korba (in short Chief Engineer) wherein the petitioner’s claim for grant of second higher pay scale from 2008 has been declined and recommendation for recovery of excess payment made to the petitioner from 2008.

2. Facts of the case in brief, are that

(A) Petitioner was appointed as a Peon on 27th April 1985 and thereafter he was promoted on the post of Office Assistant Grade-3 in the year 1990. The petitioner was not promoted within 9 years of service thus he was granted first higher pay scale in the year 1999 as per notification dated 11.01.1997. Again, after 18 years of service, the petitioner was granted second higher pay scale in year 2008. The petitioner had submitted a form on 02.02.2008 for grant of next Higher pay scale, wherein it was clearly mentioned that the petitioner has not completed account training, despite non-completion of account training, the respondent, after conducting DPC, passed an order on 03.10.2008 and granting second higher pay scale to the petitioner.

(B) It is case of the petitioner that in the notification on 19th July 2005 and its explanation dated 20th October 2005 there is no requirement for account training for grant of higher pay scale. The respondent has a policy decision allowing the employees three minimum chances to complete their account training programme. The petitioner successfully completed the account training on 25th August 2023 in his third attempt and the delay in completion was due to the pendency of a Court case related to the training results, which was only disposed of by the Hon'ble Court in the year 2023. The petitioner was promoted to Office Assistant Grade 2 in 2010 after completion of 25 years of service, the petitioner applied for the next higher pay scale on 3rd March 2017.

(C) Despite the passage of time, no decision was taken on his application by the respondents, then the petitioner submitted a representation on 5th December 2023 before the respondents. Thereafter on 9th February 2024, the petitioner was informed that an inquiry had been initiated regarding his eligibility for the higher pay scale granted in the year 2008 which was allegedly obtained without completing of required accounts training, to which the petitioner responded to inquiry on 14th February 2024. Despite the petitioner's explanation, the respondent issued a recovery order on 13th August 2024, regarding the eligibility of the petitioner for grant of higher pay scale in the year 2008 and issued recovery order for the alleged excess payment. The petitioner replied to recovery order on 14th August 2024, but the respondent has not provided any satisfactory reasoning for issuance of recovery order. Hence this petition with a prayer for quashing of the order dated 13.08.2024.

3. The petitioner has filed rejoinder wherein it has been contended that the respondents have misinterpreted the circular as the petitioner has cleared the examination within three permissible attempts, as such there is no justifiable reason for recovery of higher pay scale which was granted to the petitioner in the year 2008.

4. That, the respondents have filed their reply denying allegation made in the writ petition mainly contending that

(A) the petitioner was promoted in the year 1990 as Assistant Grade-III and he was granted first higher pay scale as per policy prevailing in the year 1999 and next higher pay scale in the year 2008 as despite having qualification for promotion he was not promoted. Thereafter, he was promoted as Office Assistant Grade-II in the year 2010. It is further contended that the recovery order dated 3.08.2024 is in accordinance with the circular dated 29.12.2023 based upon circular dated 30.01.1989 as it is compulsory for promotion on the post of Office Assistant Gra

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top