1 2025:CGHC:49083 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2968 of 2022 1 - Shatruhan Lal Dhruwe S/o Late Shri Shiv Prasad Dhruve, Aged About 63 Years R/o Village And Post Sahaspur Lohara, Tahsil Sahaspur Lohara, District Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Managing Director Chhattisgarh Rajya Van Vikash Nigam Limited Head Office Complex Sector-24, Block 7 A, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, 2 - Divisional Manager, Chhattisgarh Rajya Van Vikash Nigam Limited Kota Division Kota Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma and Shri G.P. Mathur, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Shri Kashif Shakeel, Advocate ({Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput}) Order on Board 24/09/2025 1. Following relief has been claimed in this writ petition – “i) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash recovery order dated 28/01/2022 (Annexure P/1) and direct the respondent to refund 2 the recovered amount with interest if any, in the interest of justice. ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case including cost of the petition, may also be granted.” 2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner who was working as Divisional Manager under CG Rajya Van Vikas Nigam Ltd. in Bhaisajhar area Kota Division retired from service on 31/01/2021. After one year of his retirement, without any notice, directly recovery order of 94,687/- was passed against him. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as Divisional Manager with the respondents and retired in the year 2021. Thereafter, an impugned order dated 28/01/2022 (Annexure P/1) was issued by the Managing Director of the respondent by which the petitioner was directed to deposit Rs.94,687/- on or before 15/02/2022 in the Head office or Division office, hence, recovery proceedings would be drawn against him. He submits that the impugned order was passed after the retirement of the petitioner, therefore, the same deserves to be quashed. He placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and ors. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and ors., (2015) 4 SCC 334. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner was not a Class III or Class IV employee, therefore, the law laid down in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) would not be applicable. Apart from this, he submits that the impugned order (Annexure P/1) is passed by the Managing Director of the respondent and the said order is appealable before the Board of Director of the respondent in light of Rule 137 (1) (d) of the Chhattisgarh Van Vikas Nigam Karmachari Sewa Nigam. 5. Be that as it may, as the impugned order is appealable under the above quoted provision, this Court is inclined to dispose off this petition reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the Board of Directors of the respondents within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On such appeal being preferred, it is expected that the appellate authority would decide the same in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a 3 period of 120 days from the date of presentation of the appeal. This Court on 27/04/2022 protected the petitioner by staying the recovery. That order shall continue for a period of 90 days from today. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 6. The petition is accordingly disposed off. Sd/- ({Sachin Singh Rajput ) JUDGE Deepti DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Digitally signed by DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Date: 2025.09.26 10:57:33 +0530