1 CGHC010016972025 2026:CGHC:33018 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 499 of 2025 Remeshwar Prasad Sharma S/o Shri Harprasad Sharma Aged About 63 Years Retired- Assistant Manager, Chhattisgarh Rajya Beej Vikas Nigam, R/o H. No. B- 5, Shivam Vihar, Near St. Joseph School, Amalidih, Raipur, Distt.- Raipur, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Chhattisgarh Rajya Beej Avam Krishi Vikas Nigam Limited Raipur, C.G. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Bhawan, Kayabandha, Sector- 24, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, 493661 District- Raipur, C.G. 2. Managing Director Chhattisgarh Rajya Beej Avam Krishi Vikas Nigam Ltd. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Bhawan, Kayabandha, Sector- 24, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, 493661 District- Raipur, C.G. 3. Life Insurance Company Of India Through Its Divisional Manager, Pension Insurance Unit, Divisional Office, Jeevan Prakashan, Jeevan Bima Marg, Pandri, Raipur, District -Raipur, C.G. 4. Shri Kamlesh Dhudh The Director, Lamifabs And Papers (P) Ltd. H.Q.- A-14/2 M.I.D.C., Industrial Area, Chikalthana, Aurangabad, District- Aurangabad (Maharashtra) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Jameel Akhtar, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 30/07/2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was serving as an Assistant Manager and was lastly posted as District JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.07.31 11:49:55 +0530 2 Manager at Jagdalpur. He retired from service on 28.02.2023. It is submitted that though the gratuity amount became payable upon his retirement and respondent No. 3 had issued a cheque towards payment of the gratuity, respondent No. 2, without issuing any show-cause notice, affording any opportunity of hearing or conducting any departmental enquiry, illegally deducted an amount from the petitioner's gratuity on the allegation of excess payment made during his tenure as District Manager, Jagdalpur, and released only a sum of Rs.3,71,264/- towards gratuity. It is contended that the impugned recovery and consequential deduction from the petitioner's gratuity are arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the settled principles of law. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order of recovery and the deduction made from the petitioner's gratuity. 2. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2 submits that on the previous date of hearing, time was sought to obtain instructions and to ascertain whether the alleged excess payment made to the private party had been refunded or not. Upon instructions, learned counsel fairly submits that before effecting the recovery from the petitioner's gratuity, neither any show-cause notice was issued nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. It is also fairly submitted that no departmental enquiry was initiated or conducted against the petitioner before passing the impugned order. 3 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner retired from service on 28.02.2023. A perusal of the impugned order dated 20.12.2023 (Annexure P-1) reveals that an amount has been recovered from the petitioner's gratuity on the allegation of excess payment made during his tenure as District Manager, Jagdalpur. It is also an admitted position that before effecting the said recovery, neither any show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner nor was any opportunity of hearing afforded to him. It is further not disputed that no departmental enquiry was initiated or conducted against the petitioner prior to passing the impugned order. 5. In the considered opinion of this Court, recovery from the retiral dues of an employee without complying with the principles of natural justice cannot be sustained. The action of the respondents in deducting the amount from the petitioner's gratuity without issuing notice, without providing an opportunity of hearing and without holding any departmental enquiry is arbitrary and contrary to the settled principles of law. Consequently, the impugned order dated 20.12.2023 (Annexure P-1) deserves to be and is hereby quashed and set aside. 6. The respondents are directed to refund the amount deducted from the petitioner's gratuity within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 4 7. It is, however, made clear that this order shall not preclude the respondents from initiating appropriate proceedings, if so advised, in accordance with law and after following the due procedure prescribed under the applicable rules. 8. Insofar as the petitioner's claim for interest on the delayed payment of gratuity is concerned, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to approach the competent authority by filing an appropriate representation. In the event such a representation is submitted, the competent authority shall consider and decide the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. 9. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Jyoti