1 2025:CGHC:50179 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1608 of 2023 1 - Shabbir Khan S/o Nannu Khan Aged About 62 Years R/o And 7th Battalion, Caf Q. No. N-3 Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Department Of Home, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar (New Raipur), Chhattisgarh. 2 - Commandant 9th Battalion, Chhattisgarh Sashatrabal (Armed Force) Karli-Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Zainab Mustafa Vanak, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 08/10/2025 1. Facts of the case, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Lecturer in 1996 at Government Polytechnic College, Janjgir-Champa, and has since served the State of Chhattisgarh, including postings in Naxal-affected areas, with utmost sincerity. The petitioner retired on 31.08.2022 from the post of Company Commander, which is classified as a Class III ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 position. Subsequent to his retirement, the respondent authority issued a recovery order dated 15.09.2022 for an amount of Rs. 1,54,943, alleging excess payment from 01.07.2006 onwards, without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The impugned order was passed post-retirement and pertains to a Class III employee, thereby violating the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (2015 AIR SCW 501), which categorically prohibits recovery from Class III and IV employees, especially when recovery pertains to periods exceeding five years prior to the order or when the employee is retired or due to retire within one year. The petitioner’s case squarely falls within these protective parameters, as the recovery seeks amounts dating back over five years and was initiated after the petitioner’s retirement, making the recovery order untenable in law. Relevant judgments, including the order in WPS No. 302 of 2023 ( Arun Kumar Sarve vs. State of Chhattisgarh ) , further reinforce this legal position. 2. The petitioner was superannuated from service on 31.08.2022 from the post of Company Commander, which is a Class III position. Subsequent to his retirement, the respondent authority abruptly passed a recovery order demanding Rs. 1,54,943 as excess payment allegedly made from 01.07.2006, without affording the petitioner any opportunity of hearing. The impugned recovery order being issued after the petitioner’s retirement and 3 against a Grade-III employee is manifestly contrary to the settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (2015 AIR SCW 501) . The principles established therein prohibit recovery from employees in Class III and IV services, particularly when recovery proceedings are initiated post-retirement or relate to amounts dating beyond five years prior to the recovery order. 3. It is well settled in the above Supreme Court judgment that recovery by the employer is impermissible under three principal circumstances: first, when the employee belongs to Class III or Class IV service; second, when the recovery is sought from a retired employee or one who is due to retire within a year from the recovery order; and third, when the excess payment relates to a period exceeding five years prior to the order of recovery. The petitioner’s case squarely falls within all these categories, as the recovery order was passed after retirement and seeks recovery for a period starting more than five years before the impugned order. This position has been consistently upheld by the Hon’ble High Court in Bare Lal Uike vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others (W.P.(S) 6009/2018) where similar recovery orders were quashed following the guidelines set by the Apex Court. Additionally, the order dated 16.01.2023 in WPS No. 302 of 2023, Arun Kumar Sarve vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, stayed recovery proceedings on identical grounds. The petitioner also relies on the 4 Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in Jogeswar Sahoo and ors. vs. The District Judge, Cuttack and ors. (AIR 2025 SC 2291) which further strengthens the plea against such post-retirement recoveries without due procedure and in violation of settled legal principles. Therefore, the order of recovery is illegal, arbitrary and bad in law and liable to be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and respectfully supports the impugned recovery order passed by the respondent authority. It is contended that the recovery order has been issued strictly in accordance with the relevant rules and regulations, based on a thorough examination of the records, and after due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case. The State asserts that the excess payment was made to the petitioner inadvertently, and the respondent authority is well within its jurisdiction and legal mandate to initiate recovery proceedings, even if such recovery takes place post-retirement. The State further submits that the petitioner was duly given notice and an opportunity to present his case before the issuance of the recovery order, thereby adhering to the principles of natural justice. 5. Having carefully examined the pleadings, documents, and the applicable law, this Court finds that the impugned recovery order 5 dated 15.09.2022 suffers from fundamental legal infirmity. The recovery was initiated beyond the permissible limitation of five years, post-retirement of the petitioner, who belongs to Class III service. The principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih and subsequent authoritative decisions are binding and leave no scope for such recoveries under the present facts. The State’s contention that the recovery was lawful despite these settled principles cannot be accepted. The petitioner was not provided an adequate opportunity of hearing prior to the impugned order, further compounding the procedural impropriety. 6. In view of the above, the impugned recovery order dated 15.09.2022 (Annexure P/1) issued by the Commandant, 9th Battalion Chhattisgarh Armed Force, Karli Dantewada, is liable to be and is hereby quashed. The respondent authorities are directed not to recover the said amount from the petitioner. It is further clarified that in the event any amount has already been recovered pursuant to the impugned order, the same shall be refunded to the petitioner forthwith. 7. The petition is allowed accordingly, with no order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Saxena