2025:CGHC:16566 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S) No. 3387 of 2022 Uttam Rao Kawadkar S/o Late Natthu Ji Aged About 62 Years R/o Ward No. 10, House No.-19, Mahamaya Road, Shankar Nagar, Kumhari Durg, District Durg (C.G.) ---- Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of Pashudhan Vikash, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Director Directorate Of Local Fund Audit, Block-1, Second Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3. Chhattisgarh State Dairy Cooperative Federation Limited Through- Its Managing Director, Village Urla, Post Bmy Charoda, Police Station Charoda, District Durg (C.G.) Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Vivek Singhal, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, P.L . For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Priyanka Rai, Advocate for the respondent No.3. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 07/10/2025 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following relief : 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 10-02-2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No.3. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent federation to immediately make the payment of all the consequential retiral benefits to the petitioner with interest of 18%.; ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2025.10.13 19:01:51 +0530 -2- 10.3. That, any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case. . 2. Facts of the case which emerges that the instant writ petition is being made against the recovery order dated 10.02.2022 issued by the respondent federation after the retirement of the petitioner, for avoiding the payment of the remaining part of the gratuity as directed by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.S. No.5586/2022, the respondent federation sent the service book of the petitioner before the respondent no. 2 for verification of the pay scale which was got the petitioner after the resolution passed by the executive body of the Raipur Dugdh Sangh in the year 2021. 3. That, on the request of the respondent federation, the respondent no.2 had reopened the dead issue/settled issue and without applying his mind and treated the employees of the respondent federation as equivalent at par with the employees of the Board/corporation as the department of state government and made the recovery in respect of the benefit which was giving by the Raipur g Dugdh Sangh through it s order dated 24.09.2021. Therefore, the remaining part of the gratuity amount of the petitioner has been forfeited by the respondent federation on account of excess payment received by the petitioner in Raipur Dugdh Sangh and through the impugned order dated 10.02.2022 directed to return the remaining amount of Rs. 56,440/- to the federation. 4. That, as per the record available with the respondent federation, the total Gratuity amount payable at the time of retirement to the petitioner is Rs. 15,06,642/- out of which he had only received Rs. 10 Lakhs on account of gratuity at the time of his retirement. Therefore, for payment of the entire admissible retiral dues of the petitioner. 5. That, writ petition bearing WPS No.5586/2021 is filed in which the direction has been issued by the Hon'ble Court. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for getting the remaining part of the gratuity, which is as on 31-08-2020. However, for avoiding the payment of the remaining retiral dues of the petitioner the illegal method has been adopted by the respondents without authority of law and trying to reopen the decision which was -3- taken by the executive body of the Raipur Dugdh Sangh since long bgack when the respondent federation not in the existence, without getting the permission of the competent authority in this regard. 6. That, the petitioner was the retired employee and after span of long time of the retirement, the recovery has been calculated by the respondent no.2 without application of mind and without considering the status, decision which were taken by the Board of directors of the Raipur Dugdh Shangh as well as the decision taken by the Board of directors of the respondent federation and also suppressed the fact that the General Body of the respondent federation is the supreme authority of the federation and the decision for the general body is still in the existence, therefore the recommendation of the respondent No.2 is contradictory with respect to the decision taken by the competent authority of the respondent federation as per his own bye laws. 7. That, it is further submitted that, after retirement, the recovery is not permissible under the law, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih and others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334. However, on the basis of the calculation has been made by the respondent No.2 without authority of law, the impugned order has been issued by the respondent federation, thus the order impugned dated 10-02-2022 is not sustainable under the eyes of law. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as a Tank Driver with the respondent No.3 and retired after attaining the age of superannuation on 31/08/2020. Thereafter, the impugned order Annexure P/1 dated 10/02/2022 was issued for recovery of an amount of Rs.05,06,642/- purportedly an excess payment to the petitioner from the year 2006 till 2018. He submits that identical issued has come up before this Court in case of N.N. Dwivedi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. and other connected matters in WPS No. 6218 of 2023. This Court vide its order dated 26/11/2024 allowed the writ petition relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334. He further submits that the said -4- order was subject to challenge by the respondent No.3 (Chhattisgarh State Diary Co- Operative Ltd.) before the Division Bench of this court and Writ Appeal filed by the respondent No.3 in W.A. No.55/2025 was also dismissed. Therefore, the issue involved in this writ petition is no longer res-integra in light of the judgments passed by this Court in above stated matters. 9. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 is not in a position to dispute the fact that identical issue has been decided by this Court in case of N.N. Dwivedi (Supra). 10. Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, P.L. appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2 would support the contention made by Ms. Priyanka Rai, Advocate. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 12. Taking into consideration the facts discussed above and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rafiq Masih (supra) and in terms of the order passed in WPS No.6218/2023, W.A. No.51/2025 and W.A. No. 55/2025, the impugned order (Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed and it is observed that no recovery of any excess payment be made from the petitioner and if any amount has been recovered, the same shall be refunded to the petitioner within period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 13. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed as indicated above. Sd/- Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ashish