1 CGHC010389582018 2026:CGHC:36998 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8106 of 2018  S. K. Chatterjee S/o Late N.M. Chatterjee Aged About 59 Years Address - Assistant Manager, Chhattisgarh State Beej Avam Krishi Vikas Nigam Limited, Ruhabandha Durg, Police Station Bhilai Nagar, Tahsil, Civil And Revenue District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. Mo.No. 9111102690 ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Agriculture, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Raipur, Police Station Kewli, Tahsil, Civil And Revenue District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Beej Avam Krishi Vikas Nigam Limited Beej Bhawan Ravigram (Telinandha), G.E. Road, Raipur, Police Station - Telebandha, Tahsil, Civil And Revenue District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. Presindent, Chhattisgarh State Beej Avam Krishi Vikas Nigam Limited Beej Bhawan Ravigram (Telinandha), G.E. Road, Raipur, Police Station - Telebandha, Tahsil, Civil And Revenue District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4. Deputy General Manager (Establishment) Chhattisgarh State Beej Avam Krishi Vikas Nigam Limited Beej Bhawan Ravigram (Telinandha), G.E. Road, Raipur, Police Station - Telebandha, Tahsil, Civil And Revenue District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. 5. District Manager Chhattisgarh State Beej Avam Krishi Vikas Nigam Limited Durg, Police Station, Tahsil, Civil And Revenue District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Sourabh Agrawal, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Ratnesh Agrawal, Advocate For State/Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No. 2 to 5 : Mr. Ashutosh Singh Kachhawaha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 19.08 .2026 SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.08.20 16:33:46 +0530 2 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records of the case, from the authorities. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash the order dated 31/03/2018 passed by respondent no. 4 (Annexure P/1) and order dated 06/10/2018 passed by respondent no. 3 (Annexure-P/2). 10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner on account of superannuation got retired from the post of Assistant Manager, Chhattisgarh State Beej Avam Krishi Vikas Nigam Limited, Ruhabandha, Durg on 30.06.2021. He would contend that prior to date of retirement, an order of recovery to the tune of Rs. 4,77,986/- was issued by respondent No. 4 on 31.03.2018. He would contend that excess payment was made to the petitioner on account of wrong fixation of salary. Mr. Agrawal would submit that benefit of time bound pay scale was extended to the petitioner from 01.04.2006 till 31.03.2018, and thereafter, order of recovery was passed on 31.03.2018. He would contend that there was no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of petitioner and it is very difficult for the petitioner to refund said amount after retirement. He would contend that case of the petitioner is squarely covered with the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer); (2015) 4 SCC 334. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 to 5 3 would oppose. Mr. Ashutosh Singh Kachhawaha, Advocate would submit that Director, Directorate of Local Fund Audit, Raipur verified the service record of petitioner and detected excess payment made to the petitioner from 01.04.2006 till 31.03.2018. He would contend that pursuant to observation made by Director, Directorate of Local Fund Audit, Raipur dated 13.02.2018 order of recovery was issued. He would submit that petitioner was wrongly extended benefit of time bound pay scale and when this fact was brought into the notice of the department, order of recovery was issued. He would submit that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would submit that there is dispute between the petitioner and respondents No. 2 to 5. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. It is true that order of recovery was issued on 31.03.2018, when the petitioner was in service. He got retired from services on 30.06.2021. Perusal of return filed by respondents No. 2 to 5 would show that benefit of time bound pay scale was extended by the department, and there was no misrepresentation on part of the petitioner. The petitioner was extended benefit of time bound pay scale on 01.04.2006, which continued till 31.03.2018, and thereafter, order of recovery was issued. At present, the petitioner is a retired employee and it would be very difficult for him to refund the said amount. Further there was not misrepresentation or fraud on part of the petitioner and the mistake committed by the department was detected after 12 years, therefore in opinion of this Court, the order Annexure 4 P/1 dated 31.03.2018 is not sustainable in the eyes of law, accordingly, quashed. 7. Amount, if any, recovered from the petitioner shall be refunded to him forthwith. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant