1 2025:CGHC:58483 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7404 of 2023 1 - Jamshed Akhtar S/o Late Mohammad Siddiqui Aged About 64 Years R/o Village Bachwar, Police Station And Tahsil Shankargarh, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The District Education Officer District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Block Education Officer Shankargarh, Block Shankargarh, District Balrampur, Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Accountant General (Accounting And Entitlement) Chhattisgarh Zero Pont, Balodabazar Road, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Kusum Lalchandani, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. A. K. Yadav, Advocate For State : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Govt. Advocate For Resp. No. 4 : Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Advocate (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge) Order on Board 02/12/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs : “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an appropriate writ / direction for quashment of the order/notice Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 dated 28.02.23 (Annexure P-1) whereby the recovery notice of Rs.4,69,707/- has to be deducted from the petitioner after his retirement. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an appropriate writ / direction against the respondent authorities not to harass the petitioner and not to deduct the amount from the gratuity of petitioner. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an appropriate writ / direction that the petitioner is entitled to receive full payment of pension gratuity and all retiral benefit without any deduction. 10.4 Any other relief which may this Hon'ble Court, deem fit.” 2. Facts of the case, as projected, are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Grade II under the office of the Block Education Office, Shankargarh, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, and superannuated from service on 31.01.2022 (Annexure P-2). After his retirement, the petitioner was unexpectedly served with a notice dated 28.02.2023 by Respondent No. 4, directing him to deposit an alleged excess payment of Rs. 4,69,707/- from his gratuity, which ought to have been disbursed to him (Annexure P-1). Subsequently, a follow-up communication dated 22.06.2023 reiterated this demand, compelling the petitioner to refund the said amount, contrary to service rules and without affording him a proper opportunity of hearing, thereby violating principles of natural justice (Annexure P-3). The petitioner’s gratuity had been computed as Rs. 13,62,835/- as per the calculation sheet issued on 31.03.2022 3 (Annexure P-4). Despite the petitioner responding to the notice on 25.04.2023 (Annexure P-5), the authorities have neither released the gratuity nor provided any clarification, causing him financial hardship and mental anguish. It is further submitted that judicial precedents, including orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Court, establish that excess payments received without any fault or misrepresentation on the part of the employee cannot be arbitrarily recovered. The petitioner has not engaged in any misappropriation or fraudulent act to claim amounts not entitled to him; the alleged excess is solely due to administrative action by the authorities. Consequently, the petitioner seeks redressal of this arbitrary and illegal deduction from his retiral benefits. 3. Ms. Kusum Lalchandani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the order/notice dated 28.02.2023 (Annexure P-1) is wholly arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the statutory civil service rules, as well as violative of the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was never afforded a proper opportunity of hearing before the deduction was directed. It is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that where an employee is not at fault for any alleged excess payment, and the amount has been utilized by him in the ordinary course of salary, recovery of such amount from his pensionary or gratuity benefits is neither just nor proper. In similar cases, the Hon’ble Courts have consistently quashed recovery orders issued after retirement and directed that, if any deduction has already been made, the amount must be refunded with interest to the employee. The petitioner’s case 4 squarely falls within the scope of this settled legal position, and the impugned order/notice is therefore liable to be quashed. 4. Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Panel Lawyer and Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Advocate for the respondents No. 2 to 4 would jointly submit that the matter in dispute can be decided by the committee constituted by the State Government and the petitioner should have approached before the said committee for redressal of his grievance. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the orders may be passed to this effect and the petitioner will approach before the committee and the committee may be directed to decide the case of the petitioner within a stipulated period. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully perused the entire record. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is directed to approach before the committee (Pension Redressal Commitee) constituted by the State Government along with a copy of this writ petition and other relevant documents for grant of his GPF amount within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and in turn the committee is directed to decide the case of the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the case of the petitioner. 8. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- Shayna (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE