Panchram Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2441 of 2019 Panchram Sahu S/o Mangal Prasad Sahu, Posted As Teacher (Local Body) At Government Middle School Bandhapali Sarangarh, Address Village Kosirchhote, Post Navrangpur (Hardi), Tehsil - Sarangarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. District Education Officer Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

3. Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

4. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Sarangarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

5. Block Education Officer Block Sarangarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ---Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate For State :

Mr. Saleem Kazi, Dy. A.G. along with Mr. P. Acharya, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 04/04/2019 1.

The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is to the impugned order Annexure P/1 dated 22.09.2018, whereby the respondent No.5 has ordered the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.2,27,654/-, which is said to have been erroneously got credited in the bank account of the petitioner. 2.

The facts of the case is that the petitioner was working as a Teacher (LB) at the Govt. Middle School, Bandhapali, Sarangarh, District Raigarh. In July, 2017, the petitioner was entitled for the monthly salary of an amount of Rs.36,919/-. Inadvertently, instead of Rs.36,919/- an amount of Rs. 2,85,270/- got credited in his bank account. The record shows that the

-2Department had immediately intimated the petitioner also in respect of the same. However, the petitioner inspite of letter being issued, did not deposit the excess amount of Rs.2,48,351/- back to the Department. 3.

Subsequently, the Department also had considered the case of the petitioner and had started making monthly deduction from his salary of an amount of Rs.6899/- per month and which was enforced for about 2-3 months, thereafter the deductions again got stopped and the impugned order now has been passed by the respondent No.5. 4.

At this juncture, the counsel for the petitioner submits that the authorities concerned may be directed to consider recovering the said amount by way of easy installment from the salary of the petitioner as inadvertently the petitioner had consumed the amount, which got wrongly credited in the bank account.

5.

This Court at this juncture finds it difficult to issue appropriate direction in this regard for the reason that this decision should be left for the Department to be taken on the administrative level.

6.

Given the aforesaid facts, let the petitioner approach the respondents No.2 & 5 by making a suitable representation in this regard highlighting the entire factual matrix of the case and also showing the financial condition of the petitioner and the respondents No. 2 & 5 may appropriately take a decision in this regard.

7.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed off. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved