1 2025:CGHC:49909 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3542 of 2023 1 - Sangeeta Netam Wife Of Sanjay Kumar, Aged About 50 Years Resident Of Nagri, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Divisional Forest Officer, Dhamtari Division Dhamtari District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Ajay Pandey, Govt. Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 07.10.2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the action of the respondents in initiating recovery proceedings to the tune of Rs. 3,28,873/- from the petitioner, who is the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee, late Sanjay Kumar, who was serving as Deputy Ranger (Class – III employee) and died in harness on 23.09.2022. The said recovery, pertaining to an alleged overpayment for the period 17.08.2006 to 31.10.2021, has been Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 sought to be effected without issuance of any show cause notice, without conducting any enquiry, and in absence of any proceedings initiated during the lifetime of the deceased employee. Hence petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs : “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the recovery order (Annexure P-1) and direction may be issued to release retiral dues without any deduction, in the interest of justice. 10.2 Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case including cost of the petition, may also be granted.” 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner is legally wedded wife of Late Sanjay Kumar, who was serving as a Deputy Ranger under the respondent authorities and died in harness on 23.09.2022. Upon the demise of her husband, the petitioner became entitled to receive the retiral dues and other death-cum- service benefits payable to the legal heirs of the deceased employee. However, instead of releasing the said dues, the respondents issued a notice/order dated 27.02.2023, directing the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 3,28,873/- by way of challan towards an alleged recovery for the period from 17.08.2006 to 31.10.2021, failing which the case of her husband’s pension would not be processed. Notably, no recovery proceedings were ever initiated during the lifetime of the deceased employee, nor was any show cause notice or enquiry conducted. The impugned 3 recovery has been sought directly from the petitioner, without affording any opportunity of hearing or adherence to the principles of natural justice. It is also pertinent to mention that the deceased employee had never sought any undue benefit or increment, nor was there any misrepresentation on his part. The benefit in question was granted nearly two decades ago, and now, posthumously, an attempt is being made to recover the same from his widow, which is legally impermissible. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned action of the respondent authorities in directing recovery of Rs. 3,28,873/- from the petitioner, who is the widow of the deceased employee, is arbitrary, unconstitutional, and unsustainable in the eyes of law. It is contended that the petitioner, being the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee who died in harness on 23.09.2022, is entitled to receive the full retiral dues of her late husband. However, instead of disbursing the said dues, the respondents have issued a notice directing her to deposit the above-mentioned amount by way of challan, failing which the case of her husband’s pension would not be finalized. Such a coercive direction is illegal and amounts to denial of statutory entitlements. It is further submitted that no recovery proceedings were ever initiated against the deceased employee during his lifetime, and the alleged excess payment, said to have occurred between 17.08.2006 to 31.10.2021, was never brought to his notice. There was neither any enquiry 4 conducted nor any show cause notice issued in this regard. Now, posthumously, the respondents seek to recover this amount from the petitioner, who had no role in the employment or financial matters of the deceased. This action is ex facie illegal and in clear violation of principles of natural justice. It is well-settled law that no recovery can be made from the legal heirs of a deceased employee, particularly when such recovery relates to benefits extended long ago without any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee. In the present case, there is nothing on record to suggest that the deceased employee had sought any undue increment or misrepresented any facts. The benefit in question was granted nearly two decades ago and was never questioned during his lifetime. Learned counsel for petitioner places reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, which lays down that recoveries of this nature are impermissible, especially when they cause hardship to employees or their families. The principle has been reiterated in the subsequent judgment in Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 536. In light of these settled legal principles and judicial precedents, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for quashing of the impugned recovery notice/order and seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to release the full retiral dues of the deceased employee to the petitioner without any deduction. 5 4. Learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that the recovery of Rs. 3,28,873/- from the petitioner arises from an established overpayment made to the deceased employee during his service. The respondents are legally entitled to recover such excess amounts from the retiral dues payable. The petitioner, as the legal heir, cannot claim exemption from this liability. The recovery is a legitimate correction of financial irregularity and not arbitrary or punitive. No prejudice is caused as the recovery is from the final settlement, not pension payments. The petitioner has other remedies to challenge the claim, and therefore, this writ petition is premature and without merit. Hence, the petition may be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the documents annexed along with the petition. 6. The law on the subject, as settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (supra) makes it clear that recovery of excess payments is impermissible in cases involving Class-III and Class- IV employees, retired employees or those retiring soon, payments made over five years prior, wrongful higher duty payments, or where recovery would be harsh, arbitrary, or inequitable, outweighing the right to employer reclaim funds and has observed thus : “18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would 6 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.” 7. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Gwalior Bench) in the matter of Smt. Rekha Tomar vs. M.P. Warehousing and Logistics Corporation and Others passed in W.P. No. 17214 of 2017 vide order dated 30.08.2022 has held as under : 7 “Whether a departmental enquiry can be initiated against a dead employee, if yes, then whether the respondents have followed the said procedure or not? 8. Counsel for the respondents could not point out any provision of law which empowers the Corporation to initiate a departmental enquiry against a dead employee. Furthermore, after the death of an employee takes place, the relationship of employer and employee also stand broken for the purposes of departmental enquiry. Even if the death takes place during the pendency of departmental enquiry, the departmental proceedings would stand abated. xxx xxx xxx 9. Even otherwise, it appears that the Corporation has tried to fix the liability of entire embezzlement on the shoulders of the dead employee by forfeiting an amount of Rs.16,48,000/- against a total embezzlement of Rs.6,43,88,390/-. No fact finding enquiry was conducted by the respondents to find out as to whether husband of the petitioner was solely responsible or embezzlement took place in connivance with other officers. No opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner against any such proposed recovery. 10. Thus, the order dated 30.05.2017 which provides that against a loss of Rs.6,43,88,390/- the matter is closed by forfeiting an amount of Rs.16,48,000/- payable to the petitioner is hereby quashed.” 8 8. The Allahabad High Court in the case of Durgawati Dubey vs. State of U.P. and others by order dated 08.10.2018 passed in WRIT-A No.40057 of 2013 has held as under:- “By the perusal of records, this fact is undisputed that departmental proceeding was initiated after the death of husband of petitioner. It appears that only after order of this Court dated 22.02.2013, respondents have initiated the departmental proceeding ignoring this fact that husband of the petitioner died much earlier. It is also very ridiculous that Inquiry Officer has issued notice to petitioner to submit the reply for an allegation against her late husband. In fact this act of Inquiry Officer is absolutely suffers from non application of mind and also ignores settled law of departmental proceeding. How it is possible for the petitioner to submit reply with regard to the alleged allegation of embezzlement by her late husband. Whatever letters are referred in the counter affidavit, either filed by respondent No. 4 or by the State- respondents with regard to the departmental proceeding are undsiputedly after the death of husband of petitioner. Therefore, in such facts, the complete departmental proceeding is ex facie bad as in any case, no inquiry can be initiated against a dead person. Respondents may have initiate the inquiry proceeding during the service period of husband of petitioner or at least before his death, but after death, complete inquiry proceeding as well as impugned order dated 10.06.2013 is bad in law and not sustainable. 9 9. In the case of Smt. Rajeshwari Devi Vs. State of U.P. and Ors., 2011(2) ADJ 643 decided on 07.01.2011, the High Court of Allahabad has held that as soon so as a person dies, he breaks all his connection with the worldly affairs, therefore, no disciplinary proceeding can be initiated against him. Relevant Paragraph Nos. 6 and 7 of the judgment are being quoted below:- "6. Holding of departmental enquiry and imposition of punishment contemplates a pre-requisite condition that the employee concerned, who is to be proceeded against and is to be punished, is continuing an employee, meaning thereby is alive. As soon as a person dies, he breaks all his connection with the worldly affairs. It cannot be said that the chain of employment would still continue to enable employer to pass an order, punitive in nature, against the dead employee….. 10. Similar dispute has also come before the Jharkhand High Court in the case of Jayanti Devi Vs. State of Bihar and Ors., 2001 (49) BLJR 2179 decided on 01.05.2001, the Court had directed the respondents to pay all post retiral benefits to the widow. Relevant Paragraph Nos. 9 and 10 of the judgment are being quoted below:- "9. In the instant case admittedly the delinquent- employee died on 24.3.1999 and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 30.8.1999. In 10 the enquiry report (Annexure F) the Enquiry Officer took notice of the fact that the delinquent-employee died on 24.3.1999. The Enquiry Officer further took notice of the fact that the delinquent-employee had requested the respondents to keep the departmental proceeding in abeyance till the disposal of the case pending before him. However, the Enquiry Officer after the death of delinquent employee called upon the respondents and on the basis of documents produced by them submitted enquiry report and on the basis of that report a formal order of dismissal was passed. In my opinion therefore the manner in which respondents proceeded with the departmental proceeding against the delinquent- employee, the enquiry report as well as the order of dismissal is vitiated in law and is null and void. I am, further of the view that the widow of the deceased employee cannot be deprived of her legitimate claim of death-cum-retirement benefits on the ground of dismissal of the employee on the basis of departmental proceeding initiated after 6 years of the order of suspension and that to on the basis of enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer after proceeding ex parte against the deceased-employee who died much before the date when the Enquiry Officer proceeded with the matter and submitted his report. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, this writ application is allowed and the respondents are directed to release all the death-cum-retirement dues in favour of the petitioner, who is widow of the deceased employee as expeditiously as possible and 11 preferably within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order." 11. Very recently, in the matter of Yogita Harinkhede vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, passed in W.P. No. 2592 of 2025 vide order dated 11.02.2025, the Court has held as under : 9. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of pleadings and documents placed on record, it is apparently clear that in the present case also, recovery is being made from the widow of an employee who was belonging to Class-III service. The recovery is being made after death of deceased employee from his widow. Thus, in view of the case laws cited above, the impugned recovery being made from the petitioner vide Annexure P/4 cannot be sustained. 10. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 9.12.2024 (Annexure P/4) passed by the respondent no.5 is hereby quashed. The amount, if any, recovered from the petitioner be refunded to her along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of recovery made pursuant to Annexure P/4 till date of payment. The respondents authorities are further directed to release the withheld amount to the petitioner and the family pension and pensionary dues payable to her husband on his death in favour of the petitioner.” 12. In the present case, the petitioner, widow of Late Sanjay Kumar (a Class-III employee), has been directed to pay Rs. 3,28,873/- as recovery for an alleged overpayment spanning nearly 15 years, 12 without any opportunity of hearing or enquiry. No misrepresentation or fault has been established against the deceased. The recovery notice issued posthumously, in the absence of any proceedings during the lifetime of employee, violates principles of natural justice and settled legal principles. 13. In consonance with the authoritative judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (supra), recovery of excess payments from deceased employees or Class-III employees under such circumstances is impermissible, particularly when it results in harsh, inequitable, or arbitrary consequences. 14. In light of the foregoing, this Court also places significant reliance on the well-established precedents of various High Courts, which have consistently held that recovery proceedings or departmental inquiries against a deceased employee are legally impermissible and void ab initio. 15. Accordingly, the impugned recovery notice/order dated 27.02.2023 is hereby quashed and set-aside. Any amount already deducted, if any, shall be refunded forthwith along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of deduction till refund. The respondents shall also release all pensionary and death-cum-retirement benefits due to the petitioner without delay. 16. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna Judge