1 2025:CGHC:61440 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2133 of 2020 1 - M. L. Ajagalle, S/o Lt. Shri M.D. Ajagalle, Aged About 62 Years By Occupation Sub Inspector (Retired), R/o Gudiyari, W.R.S. Colony, Tahsil And District - Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Home Police Affairs And Finance Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Atal Nagar Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - The Superintendent Of Police, Bilaspur District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - The Joint Director, Treasury, Account And Pension, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. S.K. Thomas, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Malay Jain, PL PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2025.12.17 17:38:38 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 17/12/2025 1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the order dated 27.12.2019 (Annexure P-1) issued by office of respondent No.4. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to fixed the final pension, amount of gratuity, arrears of pay and all retiral dues of the petitioner as per his last drawn salary of petitioner i.e. as Rs.60,400/- instead of Rs.58,600/- without any deduction and remit back the recovered amount with interest. 10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem fit. 10.5 Cost of the petition may also be given.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector on 21.11.1982 and was retired from service from the post of Sub-Inspector on 31.08.2019. At the time of settlement of retiral dues, an authorization letter dated 27.12.2019 (Annexure-P/1) was issued, wherein it was shown that there was excess payment to the tune of Rs.59,927/- and an order 3 was passed for recovery of the said amount and the last drawn salary of the petitioner was also reduced from Rs.60,400/- to Rs.58,600/-. Hence, this Petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parameters have been settled in the matter of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)1 and that recovery from a retired employee, or from employees who are due to retire within one year, is impermissible; therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that at the time of petitioner’s retirement, his pension case was examined and it was found that a punishment of withholding one increment with cumulative effect w.e.f. 01.08.2006 had been awarded to the petitioner in a Departmental Enquiry, however, inadvertently same was not implemented, which result in excess payment for the period from 01.07.2006 to 01.07.2019. He further submits that had proper fixation been made at the time of retirement, the petitioner would have been entitled to a payment of Rs.58,600/- vide Annexure-R/1 issued on 02.12.2019. He would further submit that as the petitioner himself has filed an undertaking for refund of excess payment so made, therefore, recovery order passed by the respondent/Authority is just and proper. In support of his submission, he places reliance in the matters of Punjab and 1 (2015) 4 SCC 334 4 Haryana and Ors vs. Jagdev Singh2 and Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Ors Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Ors3. In view of such submission, he prays to dismiss the petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed with the petition carefully. 6. Admittedly, in the instant case, at the time of retirement, while examining the case of the petitioner for settlement of the retiral dues, it was found that a penalty of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect had been imposed; however, the said order was not acted upon during the service of the petitioner for the period from 01.07.2006 to 01.07.2019, as the petitioner retired on 31.08.2019. As per the principle settled in the matter of Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (supra), recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, such nature of recovery is impermissible in law. 7. Therefore, the impugned order is in the teeth of the said judgment and thus deserves to be and is hereby quashed/set-aside. However, it is made clear that pay fixation made by the authority for the purpose of calculation of pension, after giving effect to the said penalty order, the same shall remain intact and pay fixation of the petitioner/employee at the time of the retirement as well as last drawn salary shall be maintained at Rs.58,600/-. 2 (2016) 14 SCC 267 3 (2012) 8 SCC 417 5 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the recovery of Rs.59,927/- made pursuant to the impugned order is hereby quashed and if the said amount has already been recovered, the same shall be refunded to the petitioner within a period of 120 days from the date of this order. 9. The Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priyanka