1 2025:CGHC:41891 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 846 of 2023 1 - Vijay Kumar Yadav S/o Late Mallu Ram Yadav Aged About 64 Years R/o R.E.S. Colony, Patelpara, Farasgaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Health Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Chief Medical And Health Officer District Kondagaon (C.G.) 3 - Block Medical Officer Comunity Health Centre, Farasgaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.) 4 - Chairman Chhattisgarh Pensioners Welfare Union, Farasgaon, District Kondagaon 5 - Assistant Director Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Division Bastar, District Jagdalpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Anushka Sharma, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Rishabh Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajay Pandey, Government Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 19.08.2025 2 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following relief(s):- “10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders for quashing of impugned order dated 23.12.2022 (Annexure P/1) and further directing the respondent authorities to disburse the entire retiral benefits along with the interest within a stipulated period of one month and they may further be directed to finalize the pension case of the petitioner within a period of one month and the arrears of pension from 01.01.2006 till date may kindly be directed to be disbursed with interest within a further period of one month. 10.2.That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Facts of this case, in brief, are that the petitioner, an Indian citizen entitled to all fundamental and constitutional rights, was appointed as Dresser Grade-1 on 05.12.1981 and retired from the same post at Community Health Center, Farasgaon, District Kondagaon, on 30.06.2021, following a superannuation order dated 17.12.2019 (Annexure P/2). Despite fulfilling all formalities, the petitioner’s retiral benefits, including pension and anticipatory pension, have not been released, causing financial hardship. Subsequently, the Block Medical Officer issued a letter dated 23.12.2022 (Annexure 3 P/3), alleging excess payment during the petitioner’s service tenure from 01.01.2006 to 30.06.2021 and demanded consent for adjustment against pension, without any prior adjudication or recovery order, thereby withholding pension finalization. The petitioner, who has consistently sought redress through multiple representations (Annexure P/4), faces denial of lawful benefits and anticipatory pension despite statutory entitlements. The petitioner relies on the binding precedent of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih [(2015) 4 SCC 334], which prohibits recovery from retired employees absent fraud or misrepresentation, emphasizing that recovery causing undue hardship is arbitrary and unjust. The petitioner prays for direction to release retiral dues and pension forthwith, and for any recovery to be preceded by due process and opportunity of hearing, failing which the action of the respondents is illegal and contrary to settled law. Hence this petition. 3. The petitioner respectfully submits that the impugned order is illegal, erroneous, and contrary to law, having been passed without issuance of any show cause notice or affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner has not received any amount in excess, nor has any recovery order or notice been served prior to the impugned action, and in any event, no recovery can be effected without due process. The petitioner is unequivocally entitled to retiral benefits and pension, which constitute a vested property right and not a discretionary bounty, 4 and cannot be deprived thereof arbitrarily. The alleged excess payment, purportedly spanning over 17 years, cannot be recovered without proper determination and disclosure of particulars. The District Medical Officer failed to apply the binding principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Maseeh 1 (2015) 4 SCC 334, which mandates fairness and prohibits punitive action without hearing. Being a State under Article 12 of the Constitution, the respondents are duty-bound to ensure fair play and cannot impose civil liabilities without notice and hearing. The withholding of pension and retiral benefits without compliance with relevant pension rules and without finalizing the pension within a reasonable period is unlawful. The increments granted in 2006 pertained to time-bound promotions duly sanctioned by the State Government, without any allegations of misrepresentation or fraud against the petitioner. Moreover, similarly situated employees received identical benefits without adverse action, making the differential treatment violative of natural justice. The petitioner was never afforded any opportunity to contest the allegations prior to the impugned order dated 23.12.2022, rendering the entire recovery attempt unsustainable in law. 4. At the outset, it is respectfully submitted that the present petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed at the threshold. The petitioner retired on 30.06.2021 upon attaining superannuation. 1 2015 4 SCC 334 5 Post-retirement, all admissible retiral dues including leave encashment amounting to Rs. 4,13,056/- (paid on 04.08.2021), GPF amounting to Rs. 10,74,830/- (paid on 13.01.2022), and GIS amounting to Rs. 2,04,231/- (paid on 02.08.2021) have been duly sanctioned and paid, as evidenced by the official Treasury documents annexed herein (Annexures R/1, R/2, and R/3). The petitioner’s pension case was forwarded to the competent authority, the Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts and Pension, who found that the fixation of the petitioner’s pay scale, particularly the time-bound increment, was erroneous and unauthorized. Consequently, an excess payment of Rs. 2,15,822/- was made to the petitioner, and upon verification, recovery of the said amount was rightly directed through the impugned order (Annexure P/1). In view of the delay in pension finalization, anticipatory pension of Rs. 20,070/- per month plus applicable DA has been sanctioned and is being regularly paid to the petitioner since 20.04.2023 (Annexure R/4). The excess payment made without lawful entitlement, funded from public money, is recoverable as per law. The principle of natural justice does not mandate a prior hearing in cases where no prejudice is shown, especially when the petitioner held a Class III post and the overpayment was a result of incorrect pay fixation. The petitioner’s reliance on Rafiq Maseeh is misplaced as the facts herein differ materially. Therefore, the impugned recovery order is lawful, justified, and free from infirmity, and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in its entirety. 6 5. Having considered the submissions made and upon perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned recovery order is impermissible in law, particularly in view of the binding precedents laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (supra) which prohibit recovery from retired employees in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation which has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jaggo v. Union of India and others in SLP(C) No.5580 of 2024. In light of the facts, legal principles, and competing submissions, this Court finds that the impugned recovery order is unjust, illegal, and cannot be sustained. Therefore, the recovery order dated 23.12.2022 is quashed, and the authorities are directed to refund the amount recovered from the petitioner, along with interest at 6% per annum. Regarding the benefits relating to the grant of pay scales, increments, promotions, the petitioner shall be at liberty to make a detailed representation before the competent authority, who shall consider the same in accordance with law and pass a reasoned and speaking order within three months of receipt of such representation. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any such order, he shall be at liberty to approach this Court afresh in accordance with law. 6. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s). Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Saxena ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA