2025:CGHC:9854 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3904 of 2021 Ashok Kumar Verma S/o Late Shri M.L. Verma Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Korja, District Gaurela Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh., District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education Department Mahanadi Bhavan Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of General Administrative, Mahanadi Bhavan Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. District Education Officer District Gaurela Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh., District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh 4. Block Education Officer Block Gaurela, District Gaurela Pendra Marwahi Chhattisgarh., District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Soni, Advocate. For State : Mr. T.Nande, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 27.02.2025 1. The petitioner who is retired as Headmaster in the School Education Department at Gaurela, Pendra Marvahi District has challenged the recovery memo Annexure P/1, by which recovery of Rs. 3,34,646/- has been ordered as excess payment towards made while fixing the pay of the petitioner since 1985. The petitioner retired on 30.11.2020 and thereafter the memo has SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.03.03 10:43:27 +0530 been issued. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was on the post of headmaster in the Middle School and retired from service on 30.11.2020 on attaining the age of superannuation. He would further submit that the respondent order vide order dated 10.03.2017 has not given benefit of increment under time bound scheme, as the petitioner has completed more than 30 years of service, therefore, he is entitled one more increment. He would further submit that the order of recovery was issued by the respondent No. 4 without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which is bad in law and against the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in 2015 (4) SCC 334 and Thomas Daniel Vs. State of Kerala, Civil Appeal No 7115 of 2010 (decided on 02.05.2022) and would pray for quashing of the recovery memo (Annexure P/1) so far as relates to recovery of alleged excess payment made to the petitioner. 3. Learned State counsel opposing the submission would submit that this Court in case of L.K. Ladiya Vs. State of Chhattigarh in WPS No. 6459/2018 (decided on 13.04.2023) has examined this issue and has held in paragraph 14 as under:- “14. In the present case the State has issued recovery notice without giving opportunity of hearing in violation of the direction contained in circular dated 6th July, 2015, therefore, issuance of recovery notice without opportunity of hearing is bad in law. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the Rules 1976 provide power to the State to recover the excess amount but the power has to be exercised in judicial manner in conformity with the principle of nature justice, therefore, it is directed that recovery shall be kept in abeyance and a show cause notice will be issued to the petitioner where he can raise all his grievances whether recovery is justifiable or not, whether the pay fixation is wrong or correct and thereafter, the respondent who has issued recovery order will decide the same in accordance with the rules. The respondent shall issue notice to the petitioner and decision with regard to legality and propriety of recovery will be taken within outer limit of 4 months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.” 4. Considering the facts of the case and also the judgment passed by this Court, the impugned recovery of memo (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No. 4 with regard to the recovery of Rs. 3,34,646/- from the petitioner as excess payment while issuing pension, gratuity etc., deserves to be and is hereby quashed however, the respondents are directed to issue show cause notice to the petitioner against the alleged excess payment made to the petitioner which will be replied by the petitioner and thereafter, the respondent shall pass the order in accordance with the rules governing the field within an outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and entitlement of the petitioner to get back the amount from State will be dependable upon outcome of the adjudication of issue by the respondents as directed in case of L.K. Ladiya (supra). 5. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed in part. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Santosh