1 2025:CGHC:57893 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7725 of 2023 1 - Chhatrakaran Singh S/o Shri Bhaku Lal Aged About 62 Years Retired From Assistant Sub Inspector R/o Police Line Khokhra Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Superintendent Of Police Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 3 - The Joint Director Treasury Account And Pension, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kunal Das, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sangharh Pandey, Government Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 27.11.2025 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following relief(s):- ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 “10.1. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.2. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to quash the impugned recovery order 31/01/2023 Annexure P-1 in the interest of justice. 10.3. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to finalize and release the pensionary benefit and gratuity with interest of 9% within stipulated period. 10.4. Any other relief, which may be deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be provided in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Facts of this case, in brief, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Constable and subsequently promoted to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector, serving throughout his tenure without any departmental enquiry or complaint. Upon his retirement, the petitioner was unexpectedly informed by communication dated 31.01.2023 that an amount of ₹1,94,089/- was alleged to have been paid in excess due to wrong pay fixation, and that the said amount had been deducted from his retiral dues without issuance of any show-cause notice or affording him an opportunity of hearing. The impugned recovery order dated 31.01.2023, issued post-retirement, forms the basis of challenge. The petitioner has 3 placed on record his salary slips for the years 2010–2011 and 2012–2013, as well as the pension calculation sheet and the PPO issued on 31.01.2023, none of which reflect any excess payment or pay-fixation error at any stage. Aggrieved by the unilateral and sudden recovery, the petitioner submitted a representation on 13.03.2023 seeking refund of the amount deducted from his gratuity, but no action was taken by the respondent authorities. As recovery from retiral dues on the ground of alleged erroneous pay fixation after retirement is impermissible in law, the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking quashment of the impugned recovery orders (Annexures P-1 and P-2) and release of the withheld retiral dues. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner respectfully submits that the impugned actions and orders of the respondents, including the recovery of the aforesaid amount, is illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and in clear violation of settled principles of law. The respondents failed to appreciate that the petitioner retired on 31.01.2023 and no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation was ever made against her, rendering any post-retirement recovery impermissible. 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 4 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 respondents/State that all adverse allegations made by 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 ASI and retired on 31.01.2023 and excess payment has been done to the petitioner. This mistake was detected during the scrutiny, and as per Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, recovery of the excess amount of Rs. 1,94,089/- was duly ordered. 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 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 ₹1,94,089/- from the petitioner’s salary arrears, 5 effected vide order dated 31.01.2023, 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. Admittedly, the petitioner retired on 31.01.2023 and no allegation of misrepresentation has been made. Consequently, the impugned recovery order dated 31.01.2023 (Annexure P/1) is quashed, and the respondents are directed to refund the recovered amount of ₹1,94,089/- 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 sixty days from the date of this order. 6. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s). Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Saxena 1 2015 4 SCC 334 2 2022 SCC OnLine SC 536