B£FORg a $H§ ‘“ $TAT ‘. XDME£I§TR&TIVQ . _. ‘V . .3 i oéiginal Applic‘aticsn bag} of 2001. <///0H> 7, flyiwv. v4 x >f / BEgwEEN _.~ N“. 1. Bahadur Singh Sidar_S/o Lodhi Singh Sidar, aged about 41 years, Upper Division Teacher, Government'aigher Secondary School, Pathalgaon . Bhimsen Swarnkar S/o Bodhram Swarnkar, aged 38 years, Assistant Teacher, Bal Ashram, Pathalgaon. AP PL IC ANTS The State of Chhatoisgarh, through the Secreta£y Department of Tribal Development's , Mantralay, E.K.Buildings, Raipur ' 2. The Cummissioner, Department of Tribal DevelOpment Chhattiegarh, Raipur r The Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, Jashpur. The Principal Government Higher Secondary School Pathelgaon . RESrONDNTs E ‘ APP LICEFJEON UND’ 3R 5‘? __r m. ”‘QI‘EVt‘HeLS ‘CW‘ 1988 ‘ N HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BlLASaPljR Single Eench: Hon’ble shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. Writ Petition (s) Na.355z/2oos FETITEONER$1 Bahadur Singh Sidar and another Versus ESPONDENT$: The State of Chhattisgarh and ethers x. Present: Shri Shashank Thakur, counsel for the petiticners. Shri Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondents. z ORAL 0 R D E R {Passed on 08‘“ April, 2010) Petitioners have fired this petition aggrieved by an order dated 13-01 -2001 (Annexure A4) passed by the Principai. Govt. Higher Secondary Schoei‘ Pathalgaon, by which, order of recovery has been passed. (2) Case of the petitioners is that while werking as a Teacher, eetitioners had compieted their B.Ed. training on their own expenditure in the year 1995, after due permission granted by the Deputy Commissioner, Tribal Welfare, Bilaspur, vide order é. "c- s1 28-09-1993 (Annexure A-2). On 16-02-1999 (Annexure A-B), an order was . pasted for grant of two advance increments to those, who have obtained B. Ed. training on their own expenditure. Pursuant to the decision of the government as also in compliance of the order passed by the Supreme Court in S.L.P.No.§895, petitioners were granted benefit of two advance increments and their salary was being paid along with two advance incrementsvLater on, an audit objection was raised by the Assistant Commissioner, on which basis, the Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare, Jashpur, issued a letter dated 01—01 -2001 (Annexure A-4) directing a R recovery. In compliance thereof, the Principal issued impugned order dated 13-01—2001 directing recevery of Rs.19,012f- from petitioner No.1 and Re.13,992f— from petitioner No.2. (3) $ubmission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that they were granted increments pursuant to circular dated 16—02-1999 issued by the State Government, i w 1h was implemented by the respondent authorities on their own interpretation. There was no fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioners. The circular dated 164324999 clearly indicated that all those employees appointed after 23-1 O- 1966 were entitled to payment of two advance increment, who have undergone BEd. training at their own expenses. it was only subsequently that another letter was issued by the government on 01-03~1999. lt is also argued that the letter dated 0103—1 999 (Annexure R-t) in which, it was stated that the benefit would be available only to those teachers, who have obtained B.Ed. training white in service between the period from 23-02-1964 to 07-05-1973, it was oniy applicabie in the School Education Department whereas in case of the petitioner, order was issued on 16-02— 1999 by the Tribal Department addressed to the Commissioner, Tribai Development and Tribal Welfare. The same was never withdrawn. lt is further submitted that the .7 a 9- two similarly situated teachers of the same institution namely M. P. Narndeo and . L. Malik continued to receive the benefit up to two advance increments X whereas petitioners have been subjected to discriminatory action. The other submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no such recovery could be made without granting proper opportunity of hearing, therefore, impugned order of recovery is void at) initio. The last contention is that recovery of such huge amount in lump sum from petitioners-Teachers, who are low paid employees, resuited in grave hardship. @”\ gQa (4) Per contra, submission of learned caunsei for the responcients is that the petitioners were wrongiy granted two advance increments. it is submitted that such benefit was not intended to be extended to those, who had obtained BEd training after 07-05-1973, as stated in the order of the State Government issued on O1~O3~ 1999 (Annexure R-1). it is further submitted that in view of the ciarification under Her dated 01-03-1999, it was found that petitioners were not entitted to grant of two advance increments, therefore, the actien of recovery does not suffer from iiiegality. (5) It is not the case of the respondents that the grant of two advance increments to the petitioners was an outcome of fraud or misrepresentation. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is found that the question with regard to entitlement of grant of two advance increments upon completion of B. Ed. Training at their own expenses was pending consideration at various levels. In the case of teachers of School Education Department, matter was taken up to the Supreme Court and orders were passed by the Supreme Court for grant of two advance increments, which is reflected from order dated 16-02—1999 (Annexure A—3). The circular dated 16-02- 1939 (Annexure A~3) issued by the department of Tribal Welfare did not make any distinction on the basis of the period when the B.Ed. training was obtained. The uter dated 01-03-1999 (Annexure R-1)‘ was issued by the School Education Department. However, there is nothing on record to show that the Tribai Department either withdrew or modified its circular dated 1'6-02—1S99 (Annexure A—3). Under these circumstances, whatever increments have already granted to the petitioners, could not have been recovered. (6) Consequently, impugned order of recovery dated 13-01 -2001 (Annexure-A-1) .is quashed and is hereby set aside. Recovery made, if any, wholly or in part against i \ l , c the petitianefs is also set aside. The petitioners shall be entitled ta refunci of the amount aiready recovered, if any, under impugned order dated 13-01-2001. x Sdl- h Manindra Moan Shrivastava W‘gjudge