1 2026:CGHC:14064 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 850 of 2021 1 - Kirtan Singh Rajput S/o Late Bakhat Singh Rajpur Aged About 62 Years Occupation- Retired Dresser In The O/o Veterinary Hospital, Beltara, R/o Jagi Road, Ward No. 14, Beltara, Ps Ratanpur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Livestock Development Department (Pashudhan Vikas Vibhag) Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Veterinary Services, Directorate Indravati Bhawan, Block No. 3, Ground Floor, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Joint Director Veterinary Services, Old Composite Building, Opp Collectorate, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Joint Director Treasury Accounts And Pension New Composite Building Collectorate, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner/s : Shri Sunil Kumar Soni, Advocate. For Respondents/ State : Shri Suyashdhar Badgaiyan, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 24 .03.2026 NIRMALA RAO 2 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “10.1. This Hon'ble Court may Graciously be pleased to Hold the Part of the Respondent Authorities is Patently Arbitrary, Capricious besides being Illegal and Perverse to Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution Of India, Particularly A) Withholding the Post Retiral Dues including Gratuity and Other Fringe Benefits Etc and B) Manner in which No.3 Made Recoverable Respondent Rs.3,34,064/- on Account of Excess Payment in between 01.07.2006 to 31.12.2019. 10.2 To Direct the Respondents to release Pension, Gratuity and other Fringe benefits From the Date of Entitlement with interest of 18% thereupon till the date of its Realization. 10.3 To Direct the Respondents to Refund Rs. 2,00,000/-Illegally Recovered from the Petitioner with interest of 18% Immediately and Scrupulously. 10.4 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and Proper for the Just Adjudication of the case and protecting Constitutional Rights of the Petitioners. 10.5 Cost of the petition.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner who was working on the post of Dresser got retired from services on 31.10.2020 and thereafter, order of recovery Annexure-P/1 was issued. He would contend that an amount of Rs.3,34,064/- has been sought to be recovered on the ground that due to erroneous fixation of pay-scale, the petitioner was paid a higher pay-scale for the period from 1.7.2006 to 31.12.2019. He would contend that the petitioner was a Class-IV employee, he got retired from services in the year 2020, and there was no misrepresentation on his part. The mistake was detected by the department after five years, therefore, the order of recovery is liable to 3 be quashed. It is also contended that the department has deducted Rs.2,00,000/- from the bank account of the petitioner. He would pray for refund of the said amount. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that due to a mistake, the pay-scale of the petitioner was wrongly fixed at a higher side which continued from 1.7.2006 to 31.12.2019. He would submit that the petitioner has not challenged any specific recovery order and therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents available on record. 5. A perusal of Annexure-P/5 dated 18.8.2020 issued by the Joint Director, Veterinary Services, Bilaspur would show that the department has already recovered Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.20,000/- per month) with an outstanding amount of Rs.1,34,064/-. The document further reveals that the recovery proceedings were initiated on account of incorrect fixation of salary by the department. In the present case, the petitioner is a retired Class-IV retired employee, there was no misrepresentation on his part, and the mistake committed by the department was detected after more than 10 years and thus, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer). Accordingly, the order of recovery, if any, including the order dated 18.8.2020 is hereby quashed. The recovered amount of Rs.2,00,000/- shall be refunded to the petitioner with interest @6% per annum. As there was wrong fixation of pay-scale by the 4 department itself, no recovery shall be made from the retiral dues of the petitioner. 6. With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi