1 2025:CGHC:13339 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6878 of 2021 • Lakhan Das Son Of Late Mahant Das Aged About 62 Years Retired Headmaster, Middle School, Kathrapara, Resident Of Village And Post-Sitapur, Block- Sitapur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Director Directorate Of Public Instruction, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.) 3. The District Education Officer Surguja, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) 4. The Block Education Officer Mainpat, District-Surguja (C.G.) 5. The Joint Director Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Surguja Division, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) 6. Accountant General Government Of Chhattisgarh, Zero Point Balodabazar Road, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate For State : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board MANISH YADAV Digitally signed by MANISH YADAV Date: 2025.03.21 10:54:12 +0530 2 20.03.2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the communication dated 23.09.2021 (Annexure P/1) with regard to the recovery of Rs. 2,30,664/- from the petitioner as excess payment while issuing pension, gratuity etc. to the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was retired from service on 28.02.2021 on attaining the age of superannuation. He would further submit that the order of recovery was issued by the respondents 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 communication dated 07.07.2021 (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 3 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 communication dated 23.09.2021 (Annexure P/1) with regard to the recovery of Rs. 2,30,664/- from the petitioner as excess payment while issuing pension, gratuity etc., refund of recovery of the amount will be dependable upon the proceedings to be taken by the respondents as per the direction given by this Court in case of L.K. Ladiya (supra). 5. The respondents are directed to issue show cause notice 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 the outcome of adjudication of issue by respondents as directed in case of L.K. Ladiya (supra). 6. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed in part. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Manish