1 2026:CGHC:22051 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8087 of 2024 Aabida Khan W/o Late Abdul Jalil Khan Aged About 54 Years R/o 11/13 Civil Line, Behind Thana, Magarpara, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Home Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Director General Of Police Police Head Quarter, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Divisional Joint Director Treasury Accounts And Pension, Division Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Sahil Singh, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 11/05/2026 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner, who is the wife of 2 Late Abdul Jalil Khan, a government employee, died on 04.04.2021, is challenging the order dated 04.08.2021, whereby an amount of Rs. 3,35,038/- has been deducted from the gratuity of her deceased-husband. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, being the wife of the deceased employee who died in harness, received gratuity amounting to Rs.9,33,240/-, out of which a sum of Rs.3,35,038/- has been deducted on the head of excess payment. Learned counsel submits that neither any document pertaining to such recovery was ever communicated to the petitioner nor have the respondents stated in their reply that any formal order of recovery had been passed against the petitioner’s husband during his lifetime. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents are seeking to justify the impugned recovery on the basis of consent letter Annexure R- 1, alleging that the present petitioner had consented to such recovery from the retiral dues of her deceased husband. Learned counsel further submits that the recovery which has been made by the respondent authorities is contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab V/s Rafiq Masih & Ors. reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334. The order of recovery of excess payment in absence of any show cause notice and opportunity of hearing, is bad in law and the same is against the principle of natural justice. 3 3. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner herself has consented vide Annexure R-1 for the recovery of the same, hence, at this stage, the same cannot be questioned at a belated stage. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents and the pleadings made by the petitioner as well as the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra). 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra) has issued guidelines which reads as under :- “10. In State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (Supra) this Court held that while it is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship where payments have mistakenly been made by an employer, in the following situations, a recovery by the employer 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 4 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. 11. The principle enunciated in Proposition (ii) above cannot apply to a situation such as in the present case. In the present case, the officer to whom the payment was made in the first instance was clearly placed on notice that any payment found to have been made in excess would be required to be refunded. The officer furnished an undertaking while opting for the revised pay scale. He is bound by the undertaking.” 6. In the case at hand, from perusal of the record, it reflects that recovery of Rs.3,35,038/- has been made on account of alleged excess payment made to the petitioner’s husband during his service tenure. However, the respondents have failed to place on record any document to show that any notice was issued either to the petitioner or to her husband prior to passing of the impugned order Annexure P-1. Thus, the recovery made without affording any opportunity of hearing is contrary to law and violative of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the impugned order deserves to be and is hereby 5 quashed. 7. Consequently, the present writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to refund the recovered amount to the petitioner forthwith, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Amardeep