1 2026:CGHC:10800 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1314 of 2021 1 - Sushant Kumar Awasthi (Died) Through Lrs Pushpanjali Awashti W/o Late Sushant Kumar Awasthi, Aged About 59 Years, R/o 54/113 Shanti Vihar Colony Danganiya Near Sheetla Mandir, Ward No. 69, Raipur, Brindawangarh, Dist. Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001 2 - Reema Awasthi D/o Late Sushant Kumar Awasthi Aged About 39 Years R/o 54/113 Shanti Vihar Colony Danganiya Near Sheetla Mandir, Ward No. 69, Raipur, Brindawangarh, Dist. Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001 3 - Anurag Awasthi S/o Late Sushant Kumar Awasthi Aged About 37 Years R/o 54/113 Shanti Vihar Colony Danganiya Near Sheetla Mandir, Ward No. 69, Raipur, Brindawangarh, Dist. Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001 4 - Abhijeet Awasthi S/o Late Sushant Kumar Awasthi Aged About 35 Years R/o 54/113 Shanti Vihar Colony Danganiya Near Sheetla Mandir, Ward No. 69, Raipur, Brindawangarh, Dist. Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001 ... Petitioners Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Chief Secretary, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya , Atal Nagar , New Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Secretary Higher Education Department Of Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Assistant Director (Revenue) Directorate Of Higher Education, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Deputy Director Local Fund Audit, Divisional Treasury, Accounts, And Pension Building , Behind Ghadi Chowk, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University Through Its Registrar, Great Eastern Road, Amanaka, Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Sudhanshu Upadhyay, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Amit Banerjee, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 4/ State For Respondent No. 5 : : Ms. Anuradha Jain, Deputy Government Advocate Ms. Diksha Pandey, Advocate holding the brief of Neeraj Choubey, Advocate Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.03.03 11:27:11 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 02/03/2026 1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.(i) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the present writ petition preferred by the petitioner and issue an appropriate writ/order/direction to quash the order bearing dzekad/DDLAR/3/izfrgLrk{kj/2020-21/1601 dated 21/12/2020 issued by the office of the Respondent No. 4 to recover the excess amount paid to the Petitioner from 01/01/1996 till the date of their superannuation. 10.(ii) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction to the Respondents restricting them from initiating recovery proceeding against the Petitioner in lieu of order bearing dzekad /DDLAR/3/ izfrgLrk{kj/2020-21/1601 dated 21/12/2020 issued by the office of the Respondent No. 4. 10.(iii) That, any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and necessary in the interest of justice may kindly be awarded. 10.(iv) That, the Cost of the petition may kindly also be awarded to the petitioner.” 2. Mr. Sudhanshu Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sushant Kumar Awasthi (since died) would submit that the petitioner got retired from services on 30.06.2017 from the post of Technical Assistant. He would contend that the petitioner was working with respondent No. 5. He would further contend that the petitioner was extended benefit of revised pay scale by the University. He would submit that the pay scale was revised by the University vide order 3 dated 21.06.2012 and it continued till date of retirement of the petitioner. He would contend that a decision was taken vide Agenda No. 5 of Executive Council of Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur for withdrawal of benefit extended on 21.06.2012. He would contend that pursuant to said resolution, decision has been taken by the Deputy Director, Local Fund Audit, Raipur to take appropriate decision with regard to recovery. Mr. Sudhanshu Upadhyay would submit that as there was no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner and decision of recovery has been taken after retirement and thus, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered with the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334. 3. On the other hand, learned appearing for the respective respondents would oppose. They would submit that no order with regard to recovery has been passed by the respondent authorities, therefore, the ratio laid down in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra) would not attract. They would contend that only resolution has been passed by the Executive Council of the University. They would submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the instant petition. 5. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, the petitioner(s) is permitted to make representation before respondents No. 2, 4 and 5 within a period of the 30 days from today and in turn, the said authorities are directed to take appropriate decision within period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 4 6. The petitioner(s) would be at liberty to claim amount of gratuity, if already not paid in said representation. 7. With the aforesaid direction(s), the petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti