1 2026:CGHC:25355 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5446 of 2018 N. K. Mahapatra S/o Lt. Radheshyam Mahapatra, Aged About 68 Years R/o Near Dashrath Pan Bhandar, Kotra Road Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Upper Secretary , General Administration Department, Member Secretary Pension Resolving Committee., Chhattisgarh 2 - Civil Surgeon Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Joint Director, Treasury Accounts And Pension Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh …..Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Ghansyam Patel, Advocate For State/Respondent(s) : Mr. Kawaljeet Singh Saini, Deputy Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 22/06/2026 1. At the very outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that he does not want to press I.A. No. 1, application for grant of stay. 2. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1 is hereby rejected as not pressed. Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 3. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 4. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:- “10.1. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records of the Case for its kind perusal and after being satisfied pass appropriate orders. 10.2. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the Order of recovery dated 01/09/2016 (Annexure-P/3) and the notice of recovery passed dated 20/03/2017 and 19/01/2018 (Annexure-P/4) and other consequential proceedings. 10.3. Any other relief that this Hon'ble Court may deem proper may also be granted.” 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Steward in the office of the Civil Surgeon, Health Department, in the year 1973. He would further submit that after attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from services on 30.06.2010. He would contend after retirement, the Medical Superintendent-cum-Joint Director, LLRM Medical College and Associated Hospital, Raigarh, issued an order dated 01.09.2016, followed by recovery notices dated 20.03.2017 and 19.01.2018, directing recovery of a sum of Rs.75,610/- from the petitioner on the ground that excess payment was made during his service tenure. He would argue that the said recovery order was issued after retirement of the petitioner, without affording opportunity of hearing. He would contend that there was no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner; thus, he would pray to quash the recovery order(s) and a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to finalize his pension case. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose the petition and support the impugned order. 3 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. The recovery sought to be effected from the petitioner pertains to an alleged excess payment made during the course of service and recovery order has been issued after his retirement. In absence of any allegation of fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment on the part of the petitioner, such recovery cannot be permitted to keep pending the retiral and pensionary benefits of the petitioner. 9. Taking into consideration the undisputed fact that the petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2010 and till date his pension case has not been decided by the respondent authorities, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondent authorities are under obligation to finalize the pensionary benefits of the petitioner within a reasonable time. Pension is not a bounty but a valuable right earned by an employee for the services rendered during his tenure. 10.Accordingly, the petition stands allowed and the impugned recovery order(s) are hereby quashed. The respondent authorities are directed to finalize the pension case of the petitioner in accordance with law. 11.The respondent authorities are directed to refund the amount, if any, already recovered from the petitioner pursuant to the impugned recovery order(s). 12.The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 150 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 13. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim