PWD Engineer’s Writ Against Recovery And Two Increment Cuts Dismissed; Chhattisgarh HC Says Appeal Lies To Governor

The petitioner challenged an order dated 16 July 2026 imposing recovery of the alleged loss and withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect.

The State objected that the petition was not maintainable because Rule 23 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 provided a statutory appeal.

The petitioner argued that, as the order was issued in the name of the Governor, he had directly approached the High Court because an appeal from a State Government order would lie to the Governor.

Rule 23 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 provides the petitioner with a statutory appeal.

Relying on G. S. Dewangan v. State of Chhattisgarh, WPS No. 102 of 2012, as approved in Writ Appeal No. 80 of 2012, the Court applied the principle from Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India, (1999) 6 SCC 667, that an executive order expressed in the name of the President or Governor is not thereby an order personally made by that constitutional authority.

The Court also relied on State of H.P. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd., (2005) 6 SCC 499, for the principle that a writ petition should not ordinarily be entertained where an effective statutory remedy is available.

The Court held that the fact that the impugned order was expressed in the Governor’s name did not make it an order personally passed by the Governor.

Applying the reasoning in G. S. Dewangan, the petitioner could pursue the appeal available under Rule 23, including an appeal before the Governor. Because that statutory remedy was available, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition.

The Court permitted the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy within 30 days of the order.