1 2025:CGHC:14833 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6784 of 2024 1 - Baran Lal Suryawanshi S/o Late Shri B.R. Suryawanshi Aged About 63 Years R/o Village - Bitkuli Dist- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Dist- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director Directorate Of Public Instruction ,atal Nagar, New Raipur, Dist- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Joint Director Treasury Accounts And Pension Bilaspur Dist- Bilaspur (C.G.) SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.03.28 18:26:04 +0530 2 4 - The Joint Director Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Bilaspur Dist- Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - The Block Education OfÏcer Bilha , District -Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Santosh Bharat, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri S.S. Choubey, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 27.03.2025 1. The petitioner has filed instant petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned recovery order dated 25.09.2024 (Annexure P/1). 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to release the retiral dues and pension in favour of petitioner with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of entitlement to its actual payment. 10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may be given.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as Head Master under the respondent No. 1 department and on completion of age of superannuation, the petitioner was retired from service w.e.f. 25.09.2024 After superannuation of the petitioner, the respondent No. 5 has issued no demand certificate and no incident certificate 3 in favour of the petitioner on 06/10/2023 (Annexure-P/3). To surprise of the petitioner, all of sudden impugned recovery order was issued by the respondent No. 3 whereby recovery of Rs.2,19,747/- on account of over excess payment made to the petitioner during period from 01/01/2017 onwards was passed, which is under challenge before this Hon’ble Court 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a retired employee, no notice and no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. He further submits that the excess payment paid to the petitioner from the year 01/01/2017 onwards is being recovered by the respondents, which is impermissible in light of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab and others etc. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. reported in 2015 AIR SCW 501. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submission and submits that excess payment was made to the petitioner, therefore, the recovery is permissible. He further submits that amount which is being recovered, is permissible under Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. He placed reliance in the matter of L.K. Ladiya vs. State of Chhattisgrh and others decided by coordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No. 6459 of 2018. 4 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record. 6. This Court has directed to the State to release the retiral dues after deducting Rs.2,19,747/- within a week. The return indicates that the retiral dues have been paid withholding the said amount which is in dispute. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner was retired prior to issuance of impugned order dated 25.09.2024 (Annexure- P/1) and according to Annexure-P/1, excess payment which was made from 01/01/2017 is being recovered. In case of "State of Punjab and others etc. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc." the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down certain situations under which the recovery is totally impermissible under the law. The situations are envisaged herein below :- "(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-Ill and Class- IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service). (ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post. (v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, 5 would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover." 7. In considered opinion of this Court, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of Rafiq Masih (supra), therefore, the impugned order Annexure-P/1 is quashed. It is directed to the respondent to pay back the entire withheld amount of Rs. 2,19,747/- within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 8. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib