1 2025:CGHC:61764 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P(S) No.3314 of 2020 Giriraj Yadav S/o Late Chotelal Yadav Aged About 63 Years Occupation Retired Assistant Grade-III from The O/o District Employment And Self Employment Guidance Centre, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. R/o Industrial Estate, Tiphara, Near FCI Godown, P.S. Sirgitti, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary, Technical Education, Man Power Planning, Science And Technology Mantralaya, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 – Director, Employment And Training, 1st Floor, Block No.4, Indravati Block, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Deputy Director, District Employment And Self-Employment Guidance Centre, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Joint Director, Treasury Accounts And Pension, New Composite Building, Opp. District And Session Court, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Sunil Kumar Soni, Advocates. For State/Respondents : Shri Ritesh Giri, PL. SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2025.12.19 17:32:31 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board 19.12.2025 1. This Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the recovery order dated 06.07.2020 (Annexure P-5) issued by Respondent No.3, whereby an amount of ₹1,09,926/- is sought to be recovered from the Petitioner on account of erroneous pay fixation, despite the fact that the Petitioner was superannuated from the post of Assistant Grade-III on 30.06.2019 (Annexure P-1) and further seeking grant of one notional increment w.e.f. 01.07.2020 for the purpose of pensionary benefits. 2. At the outset, Shri Soni, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that with regard to the relief of grant of notional increment to employees who retire from service on 30th June or 31st December, for the purpose of calculation of their pensionary benefits, the said issue may be disposed of by reserving liberty in favour of the Petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Department in terms of the law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and Another vs. M. Siddaraj ; Miscellaneous Application Diary No.2400/2024 & Other connected matters in Civil Appeal No.3933/2023 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has modified the interim order dated 3 06.09.2024 and issued final directions on 20.02.2025, wherein it has been clarified that benefit of notional increment for pension purposes shall be extended to the officials retiring/retired on 30th June or 31st December. He submits that as the Petitioner belongs to category of Class-III employee, therefore, any such recovery after retirement is impermissible under law and the said issue has been well settled in the matter of State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334. 3. Shri Giri, learned State Counsel has not opposed the legal proposition with regard to grant of one notional increment to the employees who have retired on 30th June or 31st December for the purpose of calculating their pensionary benefits in view of the law laid down in Union of India and Another vs. M. Siddaraj (supra). He,however, submits that as excess payment has been made during service for which the Petitioner is not entitled, therefore, recovery order passed by the authority is just and proper and placed reliance on Punjab and Haryana and Ors. vs. Jagdev Singh reported in (2016) 14 SCC 267 and Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Ors vs. State of Uttarakhand and Ors reported in (2012) 8 SCC 417 and prays to dismiss the Petition. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the Petition as also the order impugned carefully. 4 5. With regard to grant of one notional increment for the employees who have retired from services on 30th June or 31st December, certain directions have been issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 20.02.2025 that if the Petitioner files a fresh representation within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of this order, it is expected that the authorities shall examine the case of the Petitioner and benefit of the same shall be extended within an outer limit of 120 days from the date of filing of such representation. 6. With regard to recovery part, as the Petitioner belongs to the category of Class-III employee, therefore, as per the parameters laid down in State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih (supra), the said nature of recovery is impermissible in law, which has been reiterated in the matter of Jogeshwar Sahoo & Ors. Vs. the District Judge, Cuttack and Ors reported in (2025) INSC 449. 7. In view of the aforesaid principles and further considering the fact that the Petitioner was superannuated from service on 30.06.2019 and that the impugned recovery order has been issued on account of grant of an erroneous increment, coupled with the fact that the Petitioner’s pay was revised for the period from July, 2011 to June, 2019 resulting in alleged excess payment of ₹1,09,926/-, which is sought to be recovered, this Court is of the considered opinion that such recovery is impermissible in law not 5 because of any right in the employees, but in equity, in exercise of judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is implemented. 8. For the foregoing discussion, the impugned recovery order dated 06.07.2020 (Annexure P-5) issued by Respondent No.3 is liable to be and is hereby quashed. If any recovery or adjustment has been made pursuant to the aforesaid order, the same shall be refunded to the Petitioner within an outer limit of 120 days from the date of this order. The Petitioner shall be at liberty to file a fresh representation seeking grant of notional increment, which shall be considered by the concerned authority in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Another vs. M. Siddaraj (supra) and the said representation shall be decided expeditiously, preferably within an outer limit of 120 days from the date of its filing. 9. The Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Accordingly, all the pending applications also stand disposed of. 10. Office of Advocate General is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned authority for due compliance. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priya