1 WPS No. 3675 of 2020 CGHC010203402020 2026:CGHC:35672 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3675 of 2020  Makardhwaj Yadav S/o Shri Ratan Singh Yadav, Aged About 62 Years, Retired From The Post Of Van Rakshak, Forest Area Pithora, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. R/o Village Sankara (Joonk), Post And Police Station Sankara, Tehsil Pithora, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhatisgarh. 2. Divisional Forest Officer Mahasamund, General Divisional Forest Mahasamund District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. 3. Conservator Of Forest Raipur Conservancy / Circle, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4. Joint Director, Treasury, Account And Pension, Raipur Division Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 5. District Treasury Officer Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner :- Mr. Rishi Sahu, Advocate. For State :- Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Government Advocate. ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH 2 WPS No. 3675 of 2020 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 12/08/2026 1. By way of this petition, petitioner calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of order dated 24.04.2020 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Mahasamund (for short ‘DFO’) / respondent No.2 herein, by which amount of ₹1,63,464/- have been forfeited from the gratuity of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner retired from the post of Forest Guard on 31.03.2020 and his total gratuity amount was payable to the tune of ₹6,80,400/-, but the DFO further found that on account of wrongful fixation ₹1,63,464/- has to be recovered from the petitioner and accordingly, deducted ₹1,63,464/- and directed to pay ₹5,16,963/- to the petitioner which is called in question in the present writ petition. 3. Mr. Rishi Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that unless the conditions precedent in Section 4(6)(a) and (b) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for brevity “Act of 1972”) is satisfied, recovery cannot be made from the gratuity of the petitioner and, therefore, the impugned order dated 24.04.2020 (Annexure P/1) is liable to be set aside. 3 WPS No. 3675 of 2020 4. Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned State counsel, would oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and support the impugned order. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the records precisely. 6. It appears from the record that the petitioner was not terminated and admittedly, an amount of ₹1,63,464/- have been recovered from the gratuity of the petitioner which is in the teeth of provisions contain in Section 4(6) of the Act of 1972 which states as under:- “4. Payment of gratuity. – (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), – (a) the gratuity of an employee, whose services have been terminated for any act, wilful omission or negligence causing any damage or loss to, or destruction of, property belonging to the employer shall be forfeited to the extent of the damage or loss so caused; (b) the gratuity payable to an employee may be wholly or partially forfeited – (i) if the services of such employee have been terminated for his riotous or disorderly conduct or any other act of violence on his part, or (ii) if the services of such employee have been terminated for any act which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude provided that such offence is committed by him in the course of his employment.” 4 WPS No. 3675 of 2020 7. Admittedly, in the instant case, the petitioner was not terminated as per cause mentioned in Section 4(6)(a) and (b) of the Act of 1972 which was mandatory. In that view of the matter, ₹1,63,464/- could not have been recovered from the gratuity of the petitioner as Section 4(6)(a) & (b) of the Act of 1972, both are not satisfied, therefore, impugned order liable to be and is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to disburse the amount ₹1,63,464/- to the petitioner, however, this order will not prevent the respondents to recover the said amount in accordance with law. 8. In view of the above, this petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein above. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit