1 2025:CGHC:12206 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9171 of 2023 1 - Ku. Ganga Kaushik D/o Late Dwarika Prasad Kaushik, Aged About 63 Years R/o Care Of Gajanand Kaushik, Ward No. 13, Janakpur Road, Takhatpur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director, Directorate Of Health Services, Indrawati Bhawan, Atla Nagar, Tehsil Raipur Civil And Revenue District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector, Korba, Civil And Revenue District Korba Chhattisgarh. 4 - Block Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Kathgrhora, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 5 - Chief Medical And Health Officer, Korba, Civil And Revenue District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bharat Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 11.03.2025 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the impugned orders / letters of recovery Dated 31.07.2017, 11.05.2023, 15.05.2023, 16.06.2023, 13.07.2023 and 21.07.2023 (Annexure-P/1), whereby the petitioner has been instructed to refund the excess amount which she received while serving. Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 2. Petitioner is praying for following reliefs :- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ / writs, order / orders, direction / directions quashing the impugned orders of recovery dated 31.07.2017, 11.05.2023, 15.05.2023, 16.06.2023,13.07.2023 and 21.07.2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No. 4 and 5 respectively. 10.2 The respondents may kindly be directed to fix the pension of the petitioner and grant all the retiral dues with an interest of 9% per annum and the Hon'ble court may kindly call for the entire records pertaining to the service book 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.” 3. Facts of the, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner is a retired Lady Health Visitor, before her retirement, she was working in Sector Bankimongra, development block, Kathghora, District Korba, petitioner has retired from the post of Lady Health Visitor (Class-III) on 30.06.2023, the order of recovery has been passed against the petitioner to the tune of Rs 94,190/- on the ground that the Department of Joint Director Treasury and Pension, Bilaspur division had enquired and checked the service book of the petitioner and it was found that there has been an error in deciding the salary of the petitioner, due to which, the petitioner received an overpayment of salary, exceeding the amount she was entitled to. It was also mentioned that the petitioner has also been granted the benefit of second time-pay timescale on 13.03.2016. Further, directed the petitioner to deposit the excess salary paid to her through a challan in the Government account and give a 3 consenting letter for the same so that the Department can finalize the pension of the petitioner, if the consenting letter is not given by the petitioner, then there will be delay in finalizing the pension of the petitioner. The recovery orders/letters dated 31.07.2017, 11.05.2023, 15.05.2023, 16.06.2023, 13.07.2023 and 21.07.2023 were communicated to the petitioner after her retirement and further, the petitioner was informed about the recovery orders through a letter dated 13.10.2023 (Annexure-P/2) wherein all the impugned orders/letters were attached and sent to the petitioner through a courier. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned orders are illegal, erroneous and contrary to the law. The petitioner has retired from the post of Lady health visitor which is a Class-III post. There has been no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner. The order of recovery has been passed without following the principles of natural justice, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without issuing any show cause to the petitioner. Order dated 31.07.2017 was never communicated to the petitioner even the actions (if any) taken by the department pursuant to the said orders was never informed to the petitioner, the petitioner was not aware of the recovery orders / letter passed against her. The action on the part of respondent authorities informing the petitioner about the recovery orders after her retirement itself gives an impression that the respondent authorities have with a premeditated mindset proceeded against the petitioner. it is contention of learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner was initially informed orally about the recovery order and thereafter she was pressurized by the department to give a 4 consenting letter/affidavit stating that the excess amount paid to her be deducted from the amount of gratuity which will be paid to her so that the amount of pension can be finalized because of which the petitioner had given her affidavit consenting for recovery. Even then, the department has not released the pension of the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner had made a representation to the department. It is further submitted that the petitioner is retired employee and even till date she has not been given any retiral benefits. In support of his contention he placed reliance upon the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of State of Punjab and others v/s Rafiq Masih (White Washer), reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, Thomas Daniel vs. State of Kerala and Others, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 536 and decision of this Court in the matter of Minketan Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh, passed in W.P.(S.) No. 4451 of 2022 vide order dated 27.02.2023. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that wrong fixation of pay is made for the petitioner which detected only after retirement of petitioner, accordingly, order was passed and there is no error in passing of order. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with the record. 7. The primary question before this Court is whether the recovery of Rs. 94,190/- from the petitioner, a retired Class-III employee, is legally justified when the overpayment of salary resulted from an error in pay fixation by the department, without any fraud or misrepresentation on 5 the part of the petitioner. 8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Ors., reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 while considering the recovery of excess payment made to the employees observed thus : “18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III 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, 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.” 9. In Thomas Daniel vs. State of Kerala, reported in (2022) SCC Online SC 536, the Supreme Court reiterated that recovery from retired employees, particularly when there was no fraud or misrepresentation, is unjust and violates the principles of equity and natural justice. Additionally, in Minketan 6 Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh passed in W.P.(S.) No. 4451 of 2022 vide order dated 27.02.2023., this Court upheld the principle that recovery from retired employees is impermissible if they were not at fault. 10. The petitioner is a retired Class-III employee. Alleged excess payment was made due to the department’s miscalculation in pay fixation and there is no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation by the petitioner. The recovery order was issued after retirement without providing an opportunity for a hearing, violating the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was allegedly coerced into giving a consenting letter under pressure, and yet her pension remains unpaid. 11. In light of the Supreme Court rulings and the facts presented, the recovery of Rs. 94,190/- from the petitioner is illegal and unsustainable in law. The impugned recovery orders are quashed and set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to finalize and release all retirement benefits, including gratuity and pension to the petitioner within a period of 60 days. Any delay beyond this period will attract interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 12. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shayna