1 2025:CGHC:11785 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 681 of 2021 Nageshwar Prasad Kaushik S/o Late Shri Shyamlal Kaushik Aged About 63 Years Retd. Sub Inspector, Krishi Upaj Mandi, Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, Resident Of Naya Tala Para, Station Road, Ward No. 3, Naila, Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Chhattisgarh Rajya Krishi Vipnan Mandi Board Through Its Managing Director, Bij Bhawan, G.E. Road, Telibandha, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Additional Managing Director Chhattisgarh Rajya Krishi Vipnan Mandi Board, Bij Bhawan, G.E. Road, Telibandha, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Joint Director Chhattisgarh Rajya Krishi Vipnan Mandi Board Divisional Office, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4. Secretary Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Naila, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. T.R. Chandrakar, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Yashraj Verma, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.04.01 16:23:21 +0530 2 Order on Board 10/03/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition assailing the order dated 20.02.2020 issued by respondent No.2 by which four months salary has been ordered to be recovered from the petitioner which comes to Rs. 2,07,336/- on the count that as per date of birth the petitioner who stood retired on 31.08.2019 where he was allowed to work upto 31.12.2019 for four additional months. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order is against the law, as no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner, he was allowed to continue work, therefore, he is entitled to get salary for the period he has done irrespective of the fact that he would have been retired on 31.08.2019 after completing the age of superannuation. He would further submit that it is incumbent upon the respondent authorities to issue superannuation order before six months from the date of actual retirement and no such order has been passed by the respondent. This is the mistake committed by the respondent as such it cannot be said that he is responsible for negligence on the part of the respondent and would pray for allowing the writ petition. 3. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the respondent is aware of his date of birth, as such he should have taken proper steps for getting order of superannuation on 31.08.2019. He would further submit that the petitioner has not made any attempt to correct the date of retirement in the record available with the State, as such he is jointly responsible for the mistake committed by him and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. 3 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner stood retired on 31.08.2019 and it is settled law that six months prior to date of retirement, notice be given to the employee by the employer intimating the actual date of retirement. From perusal of record, it is quite vivid that the respondents were not vigilant to issue notice to the petitioner even the petitioner was allowed to work additional four months in his post also, as such it was not fault of the petitioner but it was an administrative mistake committed by the respondent for which petitioner cannot suffer loss by directing the refund of the amount to the tune of Rs. 2,07,336/-. Even otherwise the petitioner has discharged the duty additional four months for which he was paid salary without any hindrance, therefore, subsequent recovery order is bad in law on facts. As no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before issuing of the said notice and the petitioner has discharged additional duties for four months, as such the impugned order is liable to be quashed and it is quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. 6. It is made clear that the additional four months salary will not be counted for his fixation of pay, gratuity and other service benefits and the same shall be given to the petitioner on the basis of actual age of superannuation. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Santosh