1 / 5 2026:CGHC:1155 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 111 of 2026 Smt. Roopvati W/o Shri Ramnath Sahu Aged About 55 Years Working As Head Master, And Posted At Govt. Primary School Dulna, Block Abhanpur, District- Raipur (C.G.) And R/o Opposite Gurudwara (Gobra- Nawapara) Ward No. 2 (Gobra - Nawapara) Raipur District - Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department, Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Divisional Joint Director Treasury Account And Pension, Atal Nagar, Raipur Division District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - District Education Officer Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Block Education Officer Block Abhanpur, District- Raipur (C.G.) .. Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. V.K. Sharma, Advocate For State : Ms. Deeksha Gauraha, Dy. Govt. Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2026.01.09 17:44:27 +0530 2 / 5 08/01/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs: “(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned recovery order dated 22.09.2025 (Annexure P-1) and release the withheld gratuity and finalize the pension with 18% interest, in the interest of justice. (ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case including cost of the petition, may also be granted.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that husband of petitioner while working as Headmaster in Govt. Primary School Dulna, Block- Abhanpur, District- Raipur died in harness on 06.05.2024. After death of husband of petitioner, when respondent authorities were processing death-cum-retiral dues in favour of petitioner, letter/notice Annexure P- 1 is issued in the name of husband of petitioner who is not alive for recovery of excess payment of Rs.3,12,830/- directing him to submit reply. It is contention of learned counsel for petitioner that District Education Officer who issued letter was well aware of the death of employee whose name is mentioned in letter, even then, letter is issued in his name. After death of employee, recovery from legal heir is not permissible. He also submits that even otherwise it is not a case that husband of petitioner was in any manner involved in financial irregularity but from contents of notice it is reflecting that notice has been issued on the ground that excess payment has been made to husband of petitioner for which he cannot be held to be responsible. He also contended that husband of petitioner was Grade-III employee 3 / 5 and therefore in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Ors. (2015) 4 SCC 334 and Thomas Daniel Vs. State of Kerala & Ors (2022 SCC Online SC 536, recovery from legal heir of deceased employee who was as Grade-III is not permissible and therefore impugned notice be quashed. 3. Learned counsel for the State submits that from the contents of notice, it is reflecting that notice is issued because excess payment is made to husband of petitioner of Rs.3,12,830/-. Learned counsel for the State further submits that in view of submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner which is reflected from notice and decisions on which learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance, writ petition can be heard finally. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed along with writ petition. 5. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) while considering the monetary gains wrongly extended to the petitioner therein in excess of entitlement and direction for its deduction being made by the employer, directed the employer to reimburse the amount deducted. Hon'ble Supreme Court had taken note of the situation wherein recovery by the employer would be impermissible in law and held thus : “18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the 4 / 5 decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service). (ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post. (v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.” 6. Perusal of the observation made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) shows that recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service group has been held to be impermissible. Relying upon the decision in the cases of Rafiq Masih (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Thomas Daniel (supra) 5 / 5 has further held the recovery from the employees after long time to be unjustified. 7. In the aforementioned facts of the case and aforementioned decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court as also considering the notice/letter directing deceased employee to deposit the amount of Rs.3,12,830/- as excess payment made, the action of respondents is arbitrary and inequitable. 8. Accordingly, impugned notice/letter dated 22.09.2025 (Annexure P-1) is hereby quashed. Respondents are directed to release forthwith all retiral dues in favour of petitioner who is wife of deceased employee, expeditiously, preferably within period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If any deduction is already made then the same shall be refunded. 9. Writ petition is accordingly allowed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen