YOGESH TIWARI TIWARI Date: 2026.03.14

2026:CGHC:11654 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1970 of 2023 Sunil Kumar Valmeek S/o Prabhudayal Balmik Aged About 32 Years Presently Posted As Trade Constable (G.D.) 12th, Battalion (I/R) Chhattisgarh Armed Forces Ramanujganj, District - Ramanujganj -

Balrampur (C.G.)

... Petitioner versus

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department of Home (Police) Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya Naya Raipur (C.G.)

2 - Chhattisgarh Armed Forces Through Commandant District -

Ramanujganj-Balrampur (C.G.)

3 - Commandant 12th Battalion (I/R) Chhattisgarh Armed Forces, Mana Camp District - Raipur (C.G.)

... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner : Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

Order on Board

11.03.2026

1. Heard Mr. Krishna Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents.

2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following relief(s):-

“10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities not to further recover the amount and refund the amount which has been recovered from the salaried account of the petitioner.

10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to decide the representation of the petitioner. 10.3 Any other relief in the discretion of this Hon'ble Court.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed and is presently working on the post of Trade Constable in the 12th Battalion, Ramanujganj, District Ramanujganj - Balrampur, under the Chhattisgarh Armed Forces and has been discharging his duties since 03.11.2009 with utmost honesty and sincerity. It is contended that till December, 2022 no recovery whatsoever was made from the salary of the petitioner; however, thereafter certain amounts started being deducted from his salary without any prior intimation, notice or explanation from the respondent authorities.

4. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner first noticed a deduction of a small amount in January, 2023 and subsequently a substantial amount of Rs. 5,115/- was deducted from his salary on 24.02.2023. When the petitioner approached the departmental authorities seeking clarification regarding the said deductions, no satisfactory explanation was provided to him. It is further submitted that no show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing was ever granted to the petitioner prior to making such recovery, which is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice.

5. It is also contended that the petitioner belongs to the Class-IV category of employees and the recovery being made from his salary is wholly impermissible in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors., (2015) 4 SCC 334 wherein it has been categorically held that recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service is not permissible in law. On the strength of the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel submits that the impugned recovery is arbitrary, illegal and liable to be set aside.

6. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the petitioner was initially appointed under the Trade category along with other employees such as Cook, Sweeper, Barber and Washer. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable (Sweeper Trade) on 29.03.2011. Thereafter, by order dated 04.09.2019, the services of the petitioner were absorbed on the post of Constable (General Duty) with effect from 01.09.2019. It is submitted that after such absorption, the petitioner and other similarly situated Trade Constables were erroneously granted increments due to incorrect fixation of pay.

7. Learned State counsel further submits that upon scrutiny by the department, it was found that the pay of the pe