1 2025:CGHC:13337 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 441 of 2025 1 - Ayodhya Prasad Shukla S/o Late Shri Brijlal Shukla Aged About 68 Years R/o Daupara Chowk Mungeli, Police Station Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Developmet Corporation Limited Through The Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, Second Floor, Chhattisgarh Rajya Kaushal Vikash Pradhikaran Bhawan, Old Police Head Quarter Campus, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Managing Director Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, Second Floor, Chhattisgarh Rajya Kaushal Vikash SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.03.22 16:21:01 +0530 2 Pradhikaran Bhawan, Old Police Head Quarter Campus, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - The General Manager Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, Second Floor, Chhattisgarh Rajya Kaushal Vikash, Pradhikaran Bhawan, Old Police Head Quarter Campus, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Superintendent Of Police Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Govt. Advocate. For Respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 : Shri Vivek Siddharth Ojha, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 20.03.2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the order of recovery (Annexure P/4) dated 23.02.2022 passed by respondent no. 5, by which the amount of Rs. 51,282/- has been recovered from the retiral dues as well as the salary of the petitioner i.e. after the retirement of the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the recovery has been made from the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has received annual increment from the period July 2017- May 3 2018, though he was not entitled for the same and the petitioner was employee of MPSRTC/CIDC. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has received the annual increment on the basis of the order of the State Government which has been sanctioned by the Competent Authority and the same has not been received or paid to the petitioner because of any fault of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred paragraph 18 of the judgement of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab & Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others1and submits that after retirement the recovery for the payment during the tenure of service cannot be made from a retired employee. 3. Learned counsel for the State by objecting the contention of the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not entitled for annual increment, however he has received the same and an undertaking was given to the petitioner on 03.06.2017 that any amount or benefit which will be provided to the petitioner by the State Government and if the same will not be entitled by the petitioner, the same shall be recovered from the retiral dues of the petitioner and hence at this stage, the petitioner cannot question the order of recovery (Annexure P/4). 4. I have heard both the parties and perused the pleadings as well as the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Punjab & Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (Supra). 5. It appears that the amount of increment has been paid to the petitioner for the period July 2017- May 2018 by the competent 1. 2015 AIR SCW 501 4 authority and the petitioner has no role to get the said increment. Hence looking to the fact that the amount of increment has been paid to the petitioner by the competent authority, in the year 2018, the same cannot be recovered after his retirement. In view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Punjab & Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (Supra), the impugned order is quashed and the respondent are directed to refund the amount of Rs. 51,282/- within a period of 50 days to the petitioner. 6. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib