1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 265 of 2022 1 - Smt. Savitri Bai W/o Late Shri Ranglal Kanwar Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Parsahi (Dhana) P. S. And Tahsil Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, (Resham Department) Rural Industries Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director, Directorate Of Rural Industries, (Resham Department) Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhawan, Block-1, 4th Floor, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - District Resham Officer In Front Of Rest House Kulipota District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Joint Director, Treasury, Account And Pension, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Varsha Sharma, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Ghanshyam Kashyap, Dy.G.A. ({Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput}) Order on Board 08/01/2026 Following relief has been claimed in this writ petition - DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Digitally signed by DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Date: 2026.01.09 10:51:20 +0530 2 i) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue the appropriate writ/order/suitable direction towards the respondents to consider the claim of petitioner for grant arrears of salary and other service benefits in the entire service period of petitioner in light of Ram Naresh Rawat Vs. Ashwini Ray reported in 2017 (3) SCC page 436 and Bhuri Bai (Legal Heir) Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh in W.P.No.10845/2021 decide on 28 June, 2021. ii) Any other relief / reliefs which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted in favour of the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the grievance has been redressed by the respondents and the admissible arrears of salary and other service benefits have been paid by the petitioner, however, in the return filed by the respondent, they have filed document with regard to recovery of amount of Rs.5380/- from the petitioner and the petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased employee and such recovery order cannot stand. Though in the relief clause, the petitioner has not prayed for quashment of that order but in the interest of justice, the same may be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the above submission and submits that recovery is to be made from the petitioner. 4. Be that as it may, as the entire retiral dues have already been paid and the recovery order which has been appended with the return appears to be a meager amount of Rs.5380/- and that too after the death of the employee cannot be made from the widow of the deceased employee. Therefore, it is observed that the respondents shall not recover the said amount from the petitioner. 5. With the aforesaid observation, this petition is disposed off. Sd/- ({Sachin Singh Rajput}) JUDGE Deepti