1 CGHC010270942026 2026:CGHC:30206 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5394 of 2026 Ashok Kumar Rajput S/o Shri Hardutt Singh Rajput Aged About 63 Years Retired As Assistant S L R Collectorate Shakti R/o Ward No 15 Maharishi School Road Mangla Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Revenue Mahanadi Bhavan Mantralaya New Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector, Shakti District- Shakti (C.G.) 3 - The Upper Collector, Shakti District- Shakti (C.G.) 4 - The Joint Director Treasury, Accounts And Pension Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - District Treasury Office, Shakti District- Shakti (C.G.) …. Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Apurva Nigam, Panel Lawyer SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2026.07.17 11:48:28 +0530 2 (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 16/07/2026 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of the impugned recovery order dated 22.06.2026 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No.3/ Upper Collector, Sakti, District Sakti (C.G.). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who was appointed as Patwari Grade-III and retired from service on 30.09.2025 from the post of Assistant Superintendent Land Records, O/o Collector, Sakti, has challenged the impugned recovery order dated 22.06.2026 (Annexure P-1), whereby an amount of Rs.6,64,633/- has been sought to be recovered from his retiral dues on the ground of excess payment due to pay fixation. He submits that the alleged excess payment was made pursuant to the pay fixation orders issued by the competent authority and was not attributable to any misrepresentation or fault on the part of the petitioner. He further submits that before passing the impugned recovery order, no show-cause notice was issued and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Hence, the impugned recovery order is arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in law. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel, on instructions, submits that although no notice was issued to the petitioner before passing the 3 impugned recovery order, the said recovery has been initiated on the basis of the communication issued by the Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts & Pension, Bilaspur. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings as well as the material available on record. 5. The principal issue that arises for consideration in the present case is whether the respondents were justified in directing recovery of an amount of Rs.6,64,633/- on the ground of erroneous pay fixation, and there is no allegation of any misrepresentation or fraud on his part. A further issue which requires consideration is whether the impugned order could have been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and whether the same are sustainable in light of the law. 6. From a perusal of the record, it is not in dispute that there is no material available on record to indicate that the petitioner had obtained the alleged excess payment by practicing fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of any material fact. The excess payment, if any, appears to have arisen on account of an act attributable to the employer. 7. Furthermore, the record does not disclose that any show-cause notice was issued or any effective opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner prior to passing the impugned recovery order. The impugned action, therefore, also stands vitiated for non-compliance with the principles of natural justice. 4 8. Accordingly, the impugned recovery order dated 22.06.2026 (Annexure P/1) is hereby set aside. 9. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. 10. However, liberty is reserved to the respondents/State to take appropriate action afresh, in accordance with law, after following the principles of natural justice and by affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE $. Bhilwar