1 2025:CGHC:11294 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 698 of 2021 1 - Smt. Aparna Lal W/o Roshan Lal Aged About 63 Years Retd. Principal, R/o Tikrapara Ward Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - District Education Officer Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 3 - Office Of The Accountant General Zero Point, Vidhansabha Road, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Joint Director Treasury, Account And Pension, Byron Bazar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. A.D. Kuldeep, Advocate For State : Mr. Aman Tamboli, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 07.03.2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the order dated 15.01.2018 passed by the respondent No. 2 by which recovery of Rs. 1,76,285/- has been made against the petitioner on account of excess payment made to her during service tenure from the gratuity payable to her after retirement. BHUMIKA ANGARE Digitally signed by BHUMIKA ANGARE Date: 2025.03.25 12:00:57 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was working as Principal at the Government Higher Secondary School Shankardah District Dhamtari and without affording any opportunity of hearing the impugned order has been passed. Even the recovery order has been passed after retirement and the amount has been recovered from the gratuity payable to the petitioner, therefore, it could not be allowed to be continued in view of well settled position of law assailed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih dated 18.12.2014, thus he would pray for quashing of the impugned order. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would submit that recovery from gratuity is permissible in view of Rule 65(2)(B) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short, "the Rules 1976") and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Considering the facts of the case and also the judgment passed by this Court in L.K. Ladiya Vs. State of Chhattigarh in WPS No. 6459/2018 (decided on 13.04.2023), it is directed with regard to the recovery order of Rs. 176285/- against the petitioner that it will be dependable upon the proceedings to be taken by the respondents as per the direction given by this Court in L.K. Ladiya (Supra) wherein this Court in paragraph 14 has held 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 3 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.” 6. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 15.01.2018 is quashed. The respondents are directed to issue show cause notice within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order 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 three months from the date of receipt of application submitted by the petitioner along with the supporting documents and copy of this order. It is further directed that entitlement of the petitioner to get back the amount from State will be dependable upon the outcome of adjudication of issue by respondents as directed by this Court in case of L.K. Ladiya (supra). 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition is allowed in part. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Bhumika