1 2026:CGHC:7063 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7634 of 2023 1 - (Deleted) Fuleshar Bai Meshram As Per Honble Court Order Dated 08-01-2026. 2 - Chuneshwari Meshram D/o Late Shiv Charan Meshram Aged About 27 Years. 3 - Ghanshyam Meshram S/o Late Shiv Charan Meshram Aged About 40 Years. 4 - Nandini Meshram D/o Late Shiv Charan Meshram Aged About 35 Years. All are R/o Village Kui Kukdur, P.S.- Kukdur, Pandariya, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioners. versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Agriculture, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director Agriculture, Kabirdham, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sub Divisional Officer Kabirdham, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.02.19 10:40:44 +0530 2 4 - Divisional Joint Director Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. 5 - District Treasury Officer Kabirdham, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents. For Petitioners : Shri Shobhit Koshta, Advocate. For State/Respondent : Shri Hariom Rai, PL. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 09/02/2026 1. The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 23.11.2022 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Agriculture), District Kabirdham C.G. by which, recovery of Rs.1,22,778/- has been sought from the husband/father of petitioners. 2. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- 10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ and quash the impugned order dated 23/11/22 (Annexure P-3) with regard to the petitioners in the interest of justice. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for records of the instant case the interest of justice. 3 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioners in the interest of justice. 3. Necessary facts of the case are that petitioners no. 1 is wife and petitioner no. 2, 3 and 4 are children of Late Shiv Charan Meshram who retired on 31/7/2011 from the office of respondent no. 3. After his retirement, his pension was fixed and till his death, he was regularly receiving the pension amount and other pensionary benefits. Late Shiv Charan Meshram died on 19/5/22, and the petitioners are legal heirs of Late Shiv Charan Meshram. Thereafter, when the petitioners approached the respondent authorities for grant of family pension and amount to the petitioner no. 1, the respondent authorities orally informed that due to recovery of amount of Rs 1, 22, 778/-, the family pension was stopped and thereafter, the petitioner was served with the impugned notice of recovery dated 23/11/22. That, thereafter, the petitioner no. 1 has preferred the representation to the respondent authorities that recovery order is bad in law as the said recovery has been issued after retirement of the petitioner and hence, the same is illegal but no heed has been paid to the petitioner’s representation. Hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is well settled principle of law that no recovery order can be issued against the retired persons and hence, the impugned recovery notice is illegal , perverse and against the provision of law. He further submits that 4 it is well settled principle of law that any order which entail civil consequences, an opportunity of hearing must be given to the aggrieved party, however, in the present case, no opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioners which is violation of principles of natural justice. To buttress his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on paragraph 8 of the judgment passed in the matter of Union of India and Others vs. Rekha Majhi, {(2000) 10 SCC 659} by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Para 8 of the said judgment reads as under:- “8. Learned counsel for the respondent then urged that in any case the appellants are not entitled to recover the dearness reliefs on the family pension paid to the respondent between 26-1-1987 to 25-1- 1994. Learned counsel for the appellants has not drawn to our notice any circular or rule prior to 1993. Sub-rule (21) of Rule 75 finds place in the Rules which were published in 1993. It, therefore, appears that the dearness relief on the pension paid to the respondent was paid voluntarily and after a conscious decision was taken in respect thereof. And it was only after the Rules of 1993 were promulgated that orders for refixing her pension and recovery of excess amount on family pension paid to her were issued. Moreover, it is stated that the respondent who is a widow is the lone breadearner 5 of the family and her financial condition is not such as to pay back the excess amount she has already drawn. Under such circumstances, we are of the view that the recovery of excess pension paid to the respondent is not justified on legal and equitable grounds.” 5. Learned counsel for the State/respondent would support the impugned recovery order dated 23.11.2022 stating that the recovery of Rs.1,22,778/- is in respect of excess part withdrawal from the GPF account No.CA/41353 of husband and father of petitioners namely late Shiv Charan Meshram (hereinafter “deceased employee”). The said amount has been withdrawn by the deceased employee himself and as such, he is having knowledge about the same. The notice was issued to the deceased employee after his retirement on 23.11.2022, however, the deceased employee expired on 19.05.2022. He submits that the impugned order is well merited and not required to be interfered with. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available with the petition. 7. In the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- “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 1 (2015) 4 SCC 334 6 employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service). (ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from the 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.” 8. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala2, held that the State cannot recover excess amount paid to the ex-employee after the delay of 10 years. 9. From the perusal of the record, it appears that the deceased employee superannuated on 31.07.2011 and thereafter, his pension was fixed which was continuously being received by him. On 23.11.2022, after a lapse of about 10 years from the date of retirement of the deceased employee and that too after death of the deceased employee on 19.05.2022, a notice to recover the amount of Rs.1,22,778/- with regard to excess part withdrawal 2 2022 SCC OnLine SC 536 7 from the GPF account was issued to the deceased employee. After the death of deceased employee, his widow namely Fuleshwar Bai Meshram was not being granted family pension and therefore, she moved an application on 07.06.2023 for grant of family pension but the family pension was not paid which compelled her to move a petition before this Court, however, during pendency of this writ petition, she also expired on 20.04.2025 and her name was deleted from the array of cause title. 10.Considering the entire facts situation of the case, it is quite vivid that no notice from the year 2011 i.e. year of retirement of deceased employee till 23.11.2022 was issued regarding recovery of Rs.1,22,778/- regarding excess part withdrawal from the GPF account and further during the lifetime of the deceased employee though the deceased employee retired on 31.07.2011, recovery order has not been issued but the same was passed on 23.11.2022 after about 10 years since his retirement that too after the death of deceased employee on 19.05.2022. Since recovery order has not been issued during the period when the deceased employee was in service or when he retired and till his death as well, but at a highly belated stage of about more than 10 years of retirement of the deceased employee when the deceased employee expired, the impugned recovery order against the deceased employee is issued which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 8 11.Further, the widow of the deceased employee moved an application for grant of family pension which was not disbursed to her as recovery of Rs.1,22,778/- is pending against her husband. The widow of the deceased employee namely Fuleshwar Bai Meshram/Petitioner No.1 was alive till 20.04.2025 and till the said date, she was entitled to get family pension which she was denied. Therefore, if the amount of family pension has not been granted to the widow of the deceased employee then respondent authorities are under obligation to calculate the amount of family pension and the period for which the widow of the deceased was entitled to get and after calculating the amount thereof, the same may be disbursed to the legal heirs of late Fuleshwar Bai Meshram, widow of late Shri Shiv Charan Meshram, deceased employee. Ordered accordingly. 12. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 23.11.2022 is quashed/set aside. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash