1 / 4 2026:CGHC:26250 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4845 of 2026 Smt. Ganga Bai Kurre W/o Late Rampal Kurre Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Chhuchhubhata Tehsil Dabhra District Sakti C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Public Works Department Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur C.G. 2. The Chief Engineer Public Works Department Notrh Block Sector 19 Nirman Bhawan Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur C.G. 3. The Directorate Treasure Account And Pension Indrawati Bhawan Block 1 First Floor Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur C.G. 4. The Senior District Tyreasure Officer District Janjgir Champa C.G. 5. The Sub Divisional Officer Public Works Department Champa Division (Bha /sa) District Janjgir Champa C.G. 6. The Executive Engineer Public Work Department Champa Division (Bha/sa) District Janjgir Champa C.G. 7. The Joint Director Treasure Account And Pension Bilaspur District Bilaspur C.G. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Avinash Singh, G.A. JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.06.30 10:39:02 +0530 2 / 4 (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 29/06/2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's husband was initially appointed as an unskilled labourer under respondent No. 5 on 17.04.1978 and, after rendering long years of satisfactory service, his services were regularized in the year 2008. During his entire service career, no adverse remark or stigma was ever attached to his service record. Unfortunately, he died in harness on 28.08.2021, leaving behind the petitioner as his legally wedded wife and dependent. He further submits that the alleged excess payment of gratuity so made to the petitioner who is a widow of the deceased employee cannot be recovered after 5 years. The impugned action on the part of the authorities is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme court in the matter of State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih. 2. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the writ petition and submits that due to an inadvertent computational error, an excess amount towards gratuity came to be released to the petitioner, who is the widow of the deceased employee. It is submitted that upon verification of the service records, the competent authority detected the mistake and, after following the due process of law, issued the impugned communications calling upon the petitioner to refund the excess amount wrongly paid under the head of 3 / 4 gratuity. Learned State counsel further submits that despite being afforded an opportunity, the petitioner has neither deposited the excess amount nor disputed the computation made by the department. It is contended that the amount in question forms part of the public exchequer and the petitioner cannot claim any vested right to retain money which was paid to her solely on account of a clerical/computational error. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned action is legal, justified and does not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings as well as the documents placed on record. A bare perusal of the impugned communications dated 28.04.2026 and 15.05.2026 reveals that upon verification of the service records of the petitioner's deceased husband, the competent authority found that due to a computational error, gratuity amounting to Rs.6,84,990/- had been released to the petitioner on 17.11.2021, whereas the gratuity actually admissible under the applicable rules was only Rs.48,046/-. Consequently, the excess payment of Rs.6,36,944/- was found to have been erroneously disbursed. The respondents, therefore, called upon the petitioner to refund the excess amount by depositing the same in the Government Treasury so that her pension case could thereafter be processed and finalized under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1979. 4. From the material available on record, it is evident that despite issuance of the aforesaid communications, the petitioner neither 4 / 4 submitted any explanation disputing the computation made by the respondents nor refunded the excess amount. The petitioner has also not placed any material before this Court to demonstrate that she was legally entitled to receive gratuity of Rs.6,84,990/-. The only contention raised is that recovery is impermissible in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer). 5. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said contention cannot be accepted in the facts of the present case. The amount sought to be recovered is admittedly public money which came to be disbursed solely due to a patent computational error. The petitioner cannot be permitted to unjustly enrich herself by retaining an amount to which she has no legal entitlement. Public funds constitute the public exchequer, and every authority is duty- bound to rectify an apparent mistake and recover money erroneously paid. In the absence of any statutory right in favour of the petitioner to retain the excess gratuity, this Court finds no illegality or arbitrariness in the impugned action of the respondents. 6. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Jyoti