Can Recovery of Lawfully Paid Travelling Allowance to Government Grade-III Employees Be Ordered After Long Delay Without Allegation of Fraud? (Chhattisgarh High Court Reaffirms Precedent and Principles of Natural Justice – Binding Authority)

The Court held that recovery orders for payments like travelling allowance made to Grade-III government employees cannot be enforced after a significant delay in the absence of fraud, misrepresentation, or collusion, especially when due process was followed in sanction and disbursement. This judgment upholds established precedent, affirms the principle of natural justice, and serves as binding authority for similar future disputes involving government employees in service law.

Summary

Practical Impact

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

• The Court reaffirmed that the recovery of payments lawfully made to Grade-III/IV government employees, after due verification and sanction, cannot be initiated after several years in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation.
• Emphasized that ex-parte recovery orders, issued without show-cause notice or affording opportunity of hearing, are violative of natural justice and unsustainable.
• Relied on past departmental clarifications as evidence of eligibility and good faith, strengthening protection for employees.
• Restated and followed the precedent in Krishna Kumar Dewangan, cementing its application to analogous cases involving delayed recovery and legitimate claimants.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

• The Court meticulously examined the facts, noting that the petitioners’ TA claims were duly scrutinized and sanctioned by competent authorities, and payments released after independent verification by the Treasury Officer—establishing the absence of irregularity or misrepresentation at the time of payment.
• Highlighted that the recovery order was issued 7–8 years post-payment, without prior notice or opportunity for petitioners to respond, constituting a clear infraction of the principles of natural justice.
• Specifically pointed to official clarifications from 2018, whereby authorities attested to the petitioners’ eligibility, demonstrating a prior acknowledgment of the legitimacy of such payments.
• Reiterated the position that, per existing rules, recoveries from Grade-III and IV employees cannot be effected after prolonged periods unless explicit fraud or misrepresentation is established—criteria not met in this case.
• Reliance was placed on the decision in Krishna Kumar Dewangan, where under similar circumstances, the recovery order was quashed when no bad faith was found.
• The Court weighed the negligible amount involved, absence of dishonest intent, and fairness, holding that the impugned recovery order was arbitrary, ex-parte, and liable to be quashed.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioners:

• Challenged recovery as arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to law and administrative practice.
• No show-cause notice or opportunity to be heard was provided; recovery was ex-parte and violated natural justice.
• TA payments were sanctioned after due verification by competent and independent authorities; thus, recovery is unfounded.
• Previous clarifications confirmed eligibility of petitioners for the payments.
• As Grade-III employees, payments are not recoverable after several years absent fraud or misrepresentation, which is not alleged.
• Cited Krishna Kumar Dewangan’s case to support their stand.

Respondents (State):

• Recovery was legal, following rules and administrative instructions on irregular payments.
• Payments were later found to be irregular; recovery protects public funds.
• Admitted that no show-cause notice was given but argued administrative law permits such recovery to rectify errors.
• Delay does not bar recovery if ineligibility is detected; earlier clarifications did not prohibit later recovery if discrepancies found.
• Asserted the claim for quashing is baseless and petition should be dismissed.

Factual Background

Petitioners, both Grade-III employees under the Health Department, were assigned extensive field duties during 2015-16 and 2016-17 for which they claimed and received travelling allowance, following procedural scrutiny and sanction. Several years later, in 2023, a recovery order was issued without prior notice, alleging irregularity in payments. Earlier official correspondence (2018) had confirmed eligibility of such payments, and there were no allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, or collusion. Petitioners’ appeal before higher authorities remained pending, prompting recourse to the High Court.

Statutory Analysis

The Court analyzed the service rules governing recovery of payments to Grade-III and IV government employees in Chhattisgarh, which bar recovery after substantial delay unless fraud, misrepresentation, or collusion is established. Emphasis was also placed on the inviolability of principles of natural justice—particularly the need for notice and opportunity to be heard prior to recovery. The Court referenced internal administrative clarifications affirming the employees’ eligibility, further constraining the possibility of lawful recovery in such circumstances.

Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary

No concurring or dissenting opinions were provided in the judgment.

Alert Indicators

• ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms and applies the existing legal position as established in Krishna Kumar Dewangan vs. State of Chhattisgarh, reaffirming binding principles regarding delayed recovery from government employees in absence of fraud.