1 2026:CGHC:23219 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1036 of 2021 1 - Harihar Prasad Singh S/o Late Ramnarayan Singh Aged About 64 Years R/o Village Gopalpur P.S. And Tahsil Surajpur Distt. Surajpur Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - District Education Officer Surajpur Distt.Surajpur Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Block Education Officer Surajpur Distt- Surajpur Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Surajpur Distt- Surajpur Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Santosh Bharat, Advocate holding the brief of Shri A.N. Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Mr. Anmol Sharma, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 15.5.2026 NIRMALA RAO 2 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 2.3.2019 issued by respondent no.3 for recovery of Rs-28,980/- from the pension/gratuity amount of the petitioner ANNEXURE P/1. 10.2 Any other relief or reliefs may also be granted to the petitioner which this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Grade-II and got retired from services on account of superannuation from the post of Lecturer on 30.6.2018. He would contend that an order of recovery to the tune of Rs.28,980/- on account of excess payment made to the petitioner was passed by the Block Education Officer, Surajpur. He would submit that the petitioner is a retired employee and there was no misrepresentation on his part, therefore, the impugned order is bad in law. He would contend that respondent No.3 has neither assigned any reasons in the impugned order nor disclosed as to when such mistake was committed by the department. He would pray to quash the said order. 3) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that the pay-scale of the petitioner was fixed at higher side, therefore, respondent No.3 issued an order of recovery to the tune 3 of Rs.28,980/-. He would contend that an undertaking was given by the petitioner and therefore, the State authorities are entitled to recover the excess amount paid to him. It is also contended that the recovery order was issued within a period of 12 months from the date of retirement. He would contend that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on record. 5) Annexure-P/1 is the recovery order issued against the petitioner by the Block Education Officer to the tune of Rs.28,980/-. In the said order, neither date of issuance has been mentioned nor have any reasons been assigned for passing the said order. In the return filed by the State authorities, it has been pleaded that on account of wrong fixation of salary, the pay-scale of the petitioner was fixed on the higher side. 6) Taking into consideration the fact that there was no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner and that the order was issued by respondent No.3 after the retirement of the petitioner, therefore, in my opinion, the said order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 7) With regard to undertaking, under the Revision of Pay Rules, 2019, there is no such provision to obtain an undertaking from a government servant, therefore, even if any undertaking was given 4 by the petitioner, the same would not confer right upon the State authorities to recover the excess amount paid. 8) Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, in my opinion, the order of recovery is not sustainable in the eyes of law, accordingly hereby quashed. The amount, if any, recovered from the petitioner shall be refunded forthwith. 9) With the aforesaid observation(s), this petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Nimmi