High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2025.07.22 19:34:46 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 470 of 2025 2025:CGHC:34352-DB NAFR 1 - J.S. Meravi (Jhankar Singh Meravi) S/o Late Dubey Singh Meravi Aged About 51 Years Presently Posted And Working As Rural Agriculture Extension Officer, Block- Chhuikhandan, District- Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) versus ... Appellant 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Agriculture, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Commissioner, Department Of Agriculture, Directorate, Indrawati Bhawan, 2nd Floor, Block-2, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Director/additional Director/joint Director, Department Of Agriculture, Directorate, Indrawati Bhawan, 2nd Floor, Block-2, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Deputy Director Agriculture, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 5 - Sub- Divisional Agriculture Officer Khairagarh, District- Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant For State : :
Legal Reasoning
Shri Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate. Shri Shashank Thakur, Dy. Advocate General. 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Judgment on Board 21.07.2025 Per, Ramesh Sinha, CJ. 1 This writ appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order darted 22.03.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS
Decision
No.8484 of 2025 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant herein has been dismissed. 2 Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant who was working as Rural Agriculture Extension Officer was granted permission to take admission in the B.Sc. Agriculture course as a departmental candidate vide order dated 30.07.2015. The appellant took admission in the syllabus of Agriculture Graduation (B.Sc. Agriculture) in academic session 2015-16 but he failed. In the next session of 2016-17 he studied as repeater student of 1st year. Since he could not clear the course successfully in the aforesaid two academic sessions, he was relieved from college as he can't be continued for third academic year. Thereafter, the appellant joined his place of posting and performing his duties and there was no complaint against him. After lapse of about three years an order has been issued by the respondent No.5 on 09.04.2020 directing recovery of an amount of Rs.9,78,040/- (in 59 installment of Rs. 16,300/-and one installment of Rs. 16,340/-) which was paid to the appellant during 3 the period of study leave of B.Sc. Agriculture. Against the order dated 09.04.2020 the appellant approached before the authorities and the same was stayed vide order dated 07.06.2021. Subsequently, vide letter dated 20.06.2023 the respondent No.1 confirmed the order dated 09.04.2020. 3 Learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that the appellant has submitted his certificate in the form of communication dated 10.08.2017, perusal of which would clearly show that he continued his study for which leave was sanctioned for the academic sessions 2015-16 and 2016-17 and once he continued in his study for two academic sessions, the impugned order for recovery during the period of study of B.Sc. Agriculture course is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and against the provision of Rule 50 (1) of Chhattisgarh Civil Service (Leave) Rules 2010 (in short, the Rules, 2010) and Section 43 (3) of Rules, 2010. He would also submit that Rule 43(3) of Rules, 2010 provides that on completion of the study course, the Government servant shall submit the certificate of examination passed or special course of study undertaken indicating the date of commencement and termination of the course with the remarks, if any, of the authority in charge of the course of study. Vide communication dated 10.08.2017 the appellant has submitted the course completion certificate and therefore Rule 50 (1) of Rules, 2010 will not come in the way and recovery cannot be made from the petitioner, yet 4 the Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein erroneously considering the provisions of Rule 50(1) and 43 of Rules, 2010. 4 Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that Rule 43 (3) and Rule 50(1) of Rules, 2010 clearly provides that government servant is required to submit a certificate of examination passed or special course of study undertaken indicating the date of commencement and termination of course with the remarks, if any, of the authority in charge of the course of study. In the present case the appellant continuously declared fail in 12 subjects for two academic sessions 2015-16 and 2016-17. From the communication issued by the Dean of the Agriculture University to the Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Khairagarh dated 10.08.2017 with the effect that the appellant has not completed the course and failed in 12 subjects in two academic sessions for which he was not permitted to continue the study for 3rd academic session. He would further submit that conjoint reading of Rule 43(3) and 50(1) of Rules, 2010 would demonstrate the picture clear that the appellant was required to submit the examination passed certificate in which he failed and in absence thereof Rule 50(1)(i) of Rules, 2010 empowers the authority to recover the actual amount of leave salary, cost of fees, travelling and other expenses incurred by the government. Therefore, the authorities have rightly issued the recovery order of 5 Rs.9,78,040/- on 09.04.2020 and there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Single Judge affirming the order of recovery. 5 We have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the material annexed with the appeal as well as writ petition. 6 The appellant has not disputed the fact that he could not successfully cleared 12 subjects and failed in two academic sessions i.e. 2015-16 and 2016-17. Since he failed in two academic sessions, he was not permitted to continue study for third academic year. 7 The subject issue revolves around Rule 50 (1)(i) and Rule 43 (3) of Rules, 2010, which for ready reference is being reproduced hereinunder: "50. Resignation or retirement after study leave or non- completion of course of study - (1) If a Government servant resigns or retires from service or otherwise quits service without returning to duty after a period of study leave or within a period of three years after such return to duty or fails to complete the course of study and is thus unable to furnish the certificate as required under sub-rule (3) of rule 43 he shall be required to return- (i) the actual amount of leave salary, cost of fees, travelling and other expenses, if any, incurred by the Government; and …..” "43. Sanction of study leave- (3) On completion of the course of study, the Government servant shall submit to the authority which granted him the study leave, the certificate of examination passed or special course of study undertaken, indicating the date of commencement and termination of the course with the remarks, if any, of the authority in charge of the course of study." 8 From conjoint reading of these two Rules, it is ample clear that the government servant is required to submit the certificate of examination passed or special course of study undertaken, 6 indicating the date of commencement and termination of the course with the remarks, if any, of the authority in charge of the course of study. From perusal of document dated 10.08.2017, Annexure P/2, annexed with the writ petition, it transpires that since the appellant failed in 12 subjects in two academic sessions of 2015-16 and 2016-17, he has been relived from the course of B.Sc Agriculture and in that condition he could not submit the certificate of examination passed which was the condition embodied in Rule 43(3) of Rules 2010. Thus, recovery order was rightly passed by the authority which was affirmed by the learned Single Judge. 9 In an intra court appeal, the interference in routine is normally not warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned order. In the present case, there is no palpable infirmities found on the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the same is based on sound principle of law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, which needs no interference. 10 From perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, this court does not find any illegality or irregularity warranting interference in the same. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice inder