1 2025:CGHC:41890 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 726 of 2023 1 - Smt. Kamla Tiwari W/o Laxmi Prasad Tiwari Aged About 67 Years R/o Quarter No. H-179, Narmada Nagar Bilaspur, Police Station And Post Civil Lines, Tahsil Bilaspur Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Joint Director Treasury, Account And Pension, Bilaspur Division, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - District Education Officer District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Block Education Officer Kota, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - District Treasury Officer District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Anushka Sharma, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Rishabh Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajay Pandey, Government Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad 2 Order on Board 19.08.2025 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following relief(s):- “10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may direct the respondents to grant the refund which has been recovered from the petitioner on 06.02.2019, as mentioned in Salary arrears bill. 10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant the benefits of pay scales and other benefits pursuant to the annual wages increment, promotion and completion of 30 years of service of the petitioner. 10.3. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Facts of this case, in brief, are that the petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher (Class-III) by Respondent No. 3 vide order dated 17.02.1983 and joined duties on 23.02.1983 (Annexure P/1). Subsequently, she was promoted to the post of Head Master on 02.09.2008 through another order issued by Respondent No. 3. Upon completion of 24 years of service, Respondent No. 3 passed an order on 20.01.2012 granting her the benefit of the second time scale, which was duly noted by Respondent No. 4 vide Annexures P/3 and P/4. On her retirement on 30.06.2018, Respondent No. 4 issued her last pay 3 certificate and pay bill, reflecting a reduced salary of Rs. 64,700/- from Rs. 66,600/- due to one increment being withdrawn. Thereafter, Respondent No. 2, vide order dated 12.11.2018, issued after the petitioner’s retirement, revised her pay scale and initiated recovery proceedings, supported by a salary determination sheet. On 30.11.2018, Respondent No. 4 demanded a recovery amount of Rs. 1,79,362/- from the petitioner. In response, the petitioner submitted a representation on 11.12.2018 stating she was entitled to Rs. 1,74,868/- for the period from 01.03.2016 to 01.02.2018, which remained unpaid. Thereafter, vide letter dated 26.12.2018, Respondent No. 4 issued an arrear bill in which Rs. 1,23,397/- was deducted from Rs. 1,34,046/-, resulting in a payment of only Rs. 10,649/- to the petitioner, who now seeks refund of the deducted amount. Furthermore, by letter dated 16.04.2019, Respondent No. 2 directed Respondent No. 5 to revise the petitioner’s pay from Rs. 66,600/- to Rs. 64,700/-, despite the fact that she had consistently drawn Rs. 66,600/- from July 2017 to June 2018. This downward revision has adversely affected her pensionary and retirement benefits. Hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner respectfully submits that the impugned actions and orders of the respondents, including the recovery of Rs. 1,23,397/- from the arrears of the fifth pay scale on 06.02.2019, are illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and in clear violation of settled principles of law. The respondents failed 4 to appreciate that the petitioner retired on 30.06.2018 and no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation was ever made against her, rendering any post-retirement recovery impermissible. Despite being eligible under the applicable service rules of the State of Chhattisgarh, the petitioner was denied the benefit of one regular annual increment from July 2007 to June 2018, which was uniformly extended to similarly situated employees, as well as the promotional pay increment upon her promotion to Head Master on 02.09.2008, and the third time-scale benefit upon completion of 30 years of service. The denial of these rightful benefits has adversely impacted her terminal dues, including pension, gratuity, and leave encashment. The petitioner, now 67 years of age, humbly seeks intervention of this Court for the grant of these benefits, which are legitimately due. It is further submitted that the recovery effected post-retirement is contrary to the binding precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) , (2015) 4 SCC 334, and Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala , 2022 SCC OnLine SC 536, wherein such recoveries from retired employees, absent misrepresentation or fraud, have been held impermissible. Hence, the impugned recovery and the respondents’ inaction are liable to be set aside, and the petitioner is entitled to full monetary and service-related reliefs as per law. 4. At the outset, it is respectfully submitted on behalf of the answering respondents/State that all adverse allegations made by 5 the petitioner in the writ petition are denied. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any enforceable right warranting issuance of a writ by this Hon’ble Court. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 17.02.1983, promoted to Head Master on 02.09.2008, and granted the second Kramonnati pay scale with effect from 23.02.2007 upon completing 24 years of service. However, one increment was erroneously granted from 01.07.2007 despite the fact that, under Rule 10 of the Chhattisgarh Pay Revision Rules, 2009, a minimum period of six months between the date of pay revision and date of increment is mandatory, which was not fulfilled. This mistake was detected during the scrutiny of the service book by the office of the Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts and Pension, Bilaspur, and as per Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, recovery of the excess amount of Rs. 1,23,397/- was duly ordered. Upon re-examination, the excess payment—being a result of wrongful grant of increment and paid from public funds— was correctly recovered from the arrears of the fifth pay scale. The petitioner, having furnished an undertaking agreeing to such recovery in case of overpayment, is bound by it. Reliance placed by the petitioner on Rafiq Masih and other cases is misplaced in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in High Court of Punjab & Haryana vs. Jagdev Singh, wherein recovery upon prior undertaking was upheld. Therefore, the impugned recovery is 6 legal, proper, and does not suffer from any infirmity, and the writ petition deserves dismissal as being devoid of merit. 5. Having considered the submissions made and upon perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned recovery of 1,23,397/- from the petitioner’s salary arrears, ₹ effected vide order dated 06.02.2019, is impermissible in law, particularly in view of the binding precedents laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rafiq Masih 1 and Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala 2 , which prohibit recovery from retired employees in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation which has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jaggo v. Union of India and others in SLP(C) No.5580 of 2024. Admittedly, the petitioner retired on 30.06.2018 and no allegation of misrepresentation has been made. Consequently, the impugned recovery order dated 06.02.2019 is quashed, and the respondents are directed to refund the recovered amount of 1,23,397/- to the petitioner along ₹ with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of recovery till the date of actual refund, within a period of eight weeks from the date of this order. 6. So far as the petitioner's claims regarding the grant of annual increments, promotional benefits, and third time-scale benefits upon completion of 30 years of service are concerned, the 1 2015 4 SCC 334 2 2022 SCC OnLine SC 536 7 petitioner shall be at liberty to make a detailed representation before the competent authority, who shall consider the same in accordance with law and pass a reasoned and speaking order within three months of receipt of such representation. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any such order, she shall be at liberty to approach this Court afresh in accordance with law. 7. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s). Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Saxena ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA