1 2026:CGHC:26007 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3207 of 2022 1 - Mamta Soni W/o Late Shri Vijay Kumar Soni, Aged About 35 Years R/o Tifra Ward No. 7 Kalika Nagar Tifra Ps Sirgiti Tahsil And, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Government Of Home Affairs Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh Pin- 492001 2 - The Superintendent Of Police, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Joint Director, Treasury, Account And Pension Bilaspur Division Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Prakhar Dashore, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. N.K. Malviya, Advocate For State : Mr. Keshav Gupta, GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 25.06.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the case. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ for directing the respondents to immediately release the illegally deducted Gratuity amount of Rs 282754/-(two laces eighty two thousand seven hundred fifty four only) with interest from the pension amount of the deceased husband of the petitioner in the interest of justice. 10.3 Any other relief, Which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be allowed.” -2- 2. The facts in brief are that husband of the petitioner was working on the post of Constable in the Police Department, who died during service period on 03.04.2021. After death, an order of recovery in form of negative balance to the tune of Rs.2,82,754/- has been issued by respondent No.3 on 26.07.2021. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the amount reflected in the order dated 26.07.2021 has already been adjusted against the amount of gratuity, which was payable to the Government servant. He would contend that there was no misrepresentation on the part of husband of the petitioner and benefit of annual increment was extended by the Department itself with effect from 01.07.2006 which continued till death of the Government servant. He would submit that 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, order dated 26.07.2021 (Annexure P/1) is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is also prayed that as amount of Rs.2,82,754/- has already been adjusted against admissible amount of gratuity, therefore, a direction may be issued to the respondents to refund deducted amount of Rs.2,82,754/- along with interest. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Gupta, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents/State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Chandra. Mr. Gupta would submit that the petitioner has not challenged order dated 26.07.2021 which is 3 an order of recovery. He would further submit that husband of the petitioner was granted annual increment due to mistake with effect from 01.07.2006 and when this fact was detected by the department, respondent No.3 issued an order of recovery. He would contend that said amount has already been adjusted against admissible amount of gratuity. He would further contend that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. It is true that the petitioner has not challenged order of recovery dated 26.07.2021 rather in the prayer clause 10.2, a direction has been sought to the respondents to refund deducted amount of gratuity of Rs.2,82,754/-. Impliedly, the petitioner has challenged said order and sought relief of refund of recovered amount. 7. In the present case, as stated in the return filed by the State, benefit of one annual increment was extended to the husband of the petitioner with effect from 01.07.2006 which continued till his death. 8. The account of husband of the petitioner was scrutinized and verified by the department after his death and thereafter, respondent No.3 issued an order of recovery and adjusted said amount against admissible amount of gratuity payable. 9. 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). -4- (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 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.” 10. As there was no misrepresentation on the part of husband of the petitioner and benefit of one annual increment was extended by the department itself and order of recovery has been passed after 15 years, therefore, order dated 26.07.2021 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is hereby quashed. The recovered amount shall be refunded to the petitioner with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of deduction till date of its realization. 11.With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha