1 2025:CGHC:61756 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 976 of 2020 Suratlal Pradhan S/o Rusi Pradhan Aged About 73 Years Indira Colony, Tarbahar Thana Tarbahar, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner. Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Sachiv, Grih Avam Polic Vibhag Chhattisgarh Shasan, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sanyukt Sanchalak Kosh Karyalay Sambhagiy Sanyukt Sanchalak Kosh, Lekha Avam Penshan Bilaspur Sambhag, Zila- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Koshalya Adhikari Karyalaya Zila Koshalya Adhikari Korba, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Prabandhak Bhartiya State Baink Kedrikrit Peshan Prakriya Kendra Govindpura, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. 5 - Shakha Prabandhak Shakha- Vyapar Bihar Main Road, Bhartiy State Baink Vypar Bihar, Bilaspur, Zila- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Police Adhikshak Karyalaya, Police Adhikshak Korba, Zila- Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents. For Petitioner : Mr. Abdul Moin Khan, Adv on behalf of Mr. Abdul Wahab Khan, Advocate. For Res/State : Mr. Santosh Soni, Govt. Advocate. For Res No.4 & 5 : Mr. Sabyasachi Bhaduri, Advocate. SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2025.12.19 16:57:16 +0530 2 19.12.2025 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner is challenging recovery of arrears of Rs.1,02,078/- from the family pension of the petitioner made by the respondents/Authorities. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is father of Martyr Ashwini Pradhan who was working Constable under the Department of Home Ministry Chhattisgarh, however, he died during Naxalite attack on 24.03.2009. After death of his son, the petitioner being a father applied for family pension and got entitlement for the same. However, when calculation towards pension arrears was made in respect of 7th Pay Commission and pension was revised, the Department has directed the Bank for recovery from extra ordinary pension which has been paid to the petitioner @ 10%. According to the petitioner, he ought to have given Rs.5,39,968/- as family pension, however, total recovery to the tune of Rs.1,02,078/- has been made from the arrears of family pension of the petitioner in illegal manner which is bad in law. In view of such submission, he prays for appropriate direction in favour of the petitioner. 3) Learned State counsel would oppose the prayer of the petitioner and submits that as per Government policy family of the deceased Martyr are entitled for 10% extra ordinary pension in a case when Martyr died after the year 2016, however, in the instant case petitioner's son was died on 24.03.2009, therefore, circular has been made by the Department in respect of wrong calculation and deduction was made as per actual calculation. 4) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5) In catena of judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by the various High Courts, it has been held that excess payments made due to 3 employer error i.e. wrong calculation or rule interpretation are generally not recoverable from employees if there was no fraud or misrepresentation on the employee's part. In the case at hand, the petitioner is father of Martyr son who died during naxalite attack on 24.03.2009 and the Authorities have adjusted the amount of Rs.1,02,078/- from the arrears of pension on account of erroneous calculation of 7th Pay Commission. So it is quite vivid that the excess payment was made earlier on account of wrong pay fixation or calculation and not on account of fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner's son. 6) Having regard to the aforesaid facts and situation, the Court is of the view that such recovery is impermissible in law. This relief is granted not based on any specific right of the petitioner, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to shield the family pensioner from undue hardship that would be caused by ordering such recovery, in absence of any fraud or misrepresentation on their part. 7) In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds that impugned recovery of Rs.1,02,078/- is not justifiable and same is hereby quashed/set-aside. The respondents No.1, 2 & 6/concerned Authorities are directed to refund the recovered amount to the petitioner within a period of 120 days from the date of this order. 8) With the aforesaid observation and direction, this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Ajay.