1 2026:CGHC:25357 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3300 of 2022 1 - S.C. Daharwal S/o Late Shri P.P. Daharwal Aged About 64 Years R/o Maharana Pratap Nagar, Borsi, Ward No. 52, Plot No.2, Durg Police Station Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Agriculture, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Directorate Of Horticulture And Farm Forestry, Chhattisgarh (Department Of Agriculture), Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Assistant Director Directorate Of Horticulture And Farm Forestry, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For State : Mr. Keshav Gupta, GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 22.06.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 Call for records of the case from the respondents. 10.2 Issue appropriate writ(s) / direction(s) / order(s) to quash the impugned orders Annexure P-1 and direct the respondents to compensate the petitioner the cost of litigation and adequate compensation for the mental agony and harassment suffered. 10.3 Direct the respondents to repay the petitioner the total amount deducted from his retiral benefits i.e. Rs.2,64,240/- + 5238/-= 2,69,478/- along with 18% interest thereon. -2- 10.4 Pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Rural Horticulture Extension Officer vide order dated 13.05.1983 and subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Horticulture Development Officer in the year 2017. He got retired from services on account of superannuation on 31.08.2019. He would contend that after retirement, respondent No.3 issued an order of recovery dated 22.12.2021, wherein, decision has been taken to adjust a sum of Rs.2,64,240/- against the dues admissible to the petitioner and further order has been passed on 16.03.2022 to recover an amount of Rs.5238/- which was given in excess while calculating time pay scale. It is also contended by Mr. Agrawal that no opportunity of hearing was afforded and no inquiry was conducted by the respondent authorities. Mr. Agrawal would contend that the petitioner retired from Class-III post and orders have been passed after retirement, therefore, as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, 2015 AIR SCW 501, those orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Gupta, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents/State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Agrawal. Mr. Gupta would submit that an order of recovery to the tune of Rs.5238/- was passed by respondent No.2 on 16.03.2022. He would further submit that time 3 pay scale of the petitioner was wrongly assessed at higher side and when this fact was detected immediately thereafter respondent No.3 passed order. It is further contended by Mr. Gupta that during service tenure, the petitioner withdrew advance amount of Rs.10,03,793/- for office purpose on different dates but failed to submit bills and vouchers. He would contend that respondent No.3 repeatedly issued notices to the petitioner to submit bills and vouchers but till date of retirement, the petitioner did not submit those vouchers therefore, an order of recovery of Rs.10,03,793/- was passed. He would submit that after service of notice, the petitioner submitted bills and vouchers to the extent of Rs.7,39,553/- and said amount was adjusted against the outstanding amount of Rs.10,03,793/-. He would further submit that the petitioner was again afforded an opportunity to submit all remaining bills and vouchers but he failed, therefore, order Annexure P/1 was passed by respondent No.3 dated 22.12.2021. 4. At this stage, Mr. Agrawal, Advocate would submit that remaining bills and vouchers are not in possession of the petitioner, therefore, he could not submit before the respondent authorities. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. In the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- “(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. -4- (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 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.” 7. With regard to order Annexure P/2 dated 16.03.2022, it is not in dispute that no show cause notice was issued and no opportunity of hearing was afforded and decision was taken after retirement for recovery of Rs.5238/-. 8. It is admitted fact that there was no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner in fixation of time pay scale and therefore, the order dated 16.03.2022 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is hereby quashed. The amount, if has already been recovered, shall be refunded to the petitioner, forthwith. 9. With regard to order dated 22.12.2021 Annexure P/1, from perusal of documents including the notices issued by the respondent authorities, it is apparent that the petitioner failed to submit bills and vouchers with the department. The petitioner withdrew a sum of Rs.10,03,793/- from department for office purpose and failed to submit bills and vouchers. After retirement, the petitioner submitted bills and vouchers to the tune of Rs.7,39,553/- and said amount has already been adjusted. The order of recovery has not been passed by the respondent authorities on account of wrong fixation of salary and therefore, the ratio laid down in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra) would not apply. 5 10.The petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity; he submitted part bills and vouchers and failed to submit remaining bills and vouchers, therefore, the respondent authorities rightly took decision to adjust the amount of Rs.2,64,240/- with admissible dues payable to the petitioner. The relief sought with regard to quashment of order dated 22.12.2021 is hereby rejected. 11.With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha