2025:CGHC:10214 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1248 of 2021 1 - Revaram Sonekar S/o Late Ramji Sonekar, Aged About 63 Years Occupation Assistant Internal Account Examiner And Taxation Officer Under The Office Of Janpad Panchayat Masturi, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Social Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Mantralaya, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director, Directorate Of Panchayat And Social Welfare Department, Indrawati Bawan, Atal Nagar, Mantralaya, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Joint Director, Panchayat And Social Welfare Department Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 6 - The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 7 - The Joint Director, Treasury, Account And Pension Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Palash Tiwari, Advocate. For State : Mr. Topilal Bareth, Panel Lawyer For Res. No.6 : Mr. Venkatesh Pandey, Advocate KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Digitally signed by KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Date: 2025.03.25 10:51:59 +0530 Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 03.03.2025 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 04.07.2014 (Annexure P/1) whereby recovery of Rs. 1,85,558/- has been made under Section 65(2)(B) of the Chhattigarh Pension Rule, 1976 while issuing pension, gratuity etc. to the petitioner. 2. The brief facts as reflected from the record are that petitioner was working as Assistant Internal Account Examiner and Taxation Officer in Janpad Panchayat, Masturi, District – Bilaspur and retired on 30.04.2019. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 04.07.2014, amount of Rs. 1,85,558/- was recovered from the gratuity of the petitioner on 21.08.2019 on the count that an excess payment has been made to him. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he is class III employee therefore, recovery cannot be made from him. He would further submit that recovery has been made by the respondents without issuing show cause notice to him, which is bad in law and against the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in 2015 (4) SCC 334 and Thomas Daniel Vs. State of Kerala, Civil Appeal No 7115 of 2010 (decided on 02.05.2022) and would pray for quashing of the order dated (Annexure P/1) 04.07.2014 so far as relates to recovery of alleged excess payment made to the petitioner. 4. Learned State counsel opposing the submission would submit that as per Section 65(2)(B) of the Chhattigarh Pension Rule, 1976 recovery can be made from the employee. He would further submit that consent has already been obtained from the petitioner for deduction of the amount, therefore, the respondents in recovering the amount from the gratuity payable to the petitioner has not committed any irregularity and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. This Court in case of L.K. Ladiya Vs. State of Chhattigarh in WPS No. 6459/2018 (decided on 13.04.2023) has examined the issue of show cause notice and recovery of amount from the pensionary benefits of the employee and has held in paragraph 14 as under:- “14. In the present case the State has issued recovery notice without giving opportunity of hearing in violation of the direction contained in circular dated 6th July, 2015, therefore, issuance of recovery notice without opportunity of hearing is bad in law. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the Rules 1976 provide power to the State to recover the excess amount but the power has to be exercised in judicial manner in conformity with the principle of nature justice, therefore, it is directed that recovery shall be kept in abeyance and a show cause notice will be issued to the petitioner where he can raise all his grievances whether recovery is justifiable or not, whether the pay fixation is wrong or correct and thereafter, the respondent who has issued recovery order will decide the same in accordance with the rules. The respondent shall issue notice to the petitioner and decision with regard to legality and propriety of recovery will be taken within outer limit of 4 months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.” 7. Considering the facts of the present case and also the judgment passed by this Court, it is directed that the impugned order dated 04.07.2014 (Annexure P/1) with regard to the recovery of Rs. 1,85,558/- from the petitioner as excess payment while issuing pension, gratuity etc., refund/recovery of the amount shall be dependable upon the proceedings to be undertaken by the respondents as per the direction given by this Court in case of L.K. Ladiya (supra). 8. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to issue show cause notice against the alleged excess payment made to the petitioner which will be replied by the petitioner and thereafter, the respondent shall pass the order in accordance with the rules governing the field within an outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and entitlement of the petitioner to get back the amount from State will be dependable upon the outcome of adjudication of issue by respondents as directed in case of L.K. Ladiya (supra). 9. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed in part. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Deshmukh