1 2026:CGHC:12182 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4419 of 2023 Alok Zachariah S/o Late Shri K.K. Zachariah Aged About 64 Years Occupation - Retired Accountant, R/o Village Umarmara, Post Amali, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Mo. No. 8839980520 ... Petitioner. versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Health, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Raipur, Police Station Kewli, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Health Services, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Joint Director Health Services, Seepat Road Bilaspur Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Bilaspur Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Near Tehsil Pendra Road, District : Gaurela- Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.03.30 14:57:07 +0530 2 6 - Block Medical Officer Community Health Center Gaurela, Tahsil - Gaurela, District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh. 7 - District Treasury Officer Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, District : Gaurela-Pendra- Marwahi, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Sourabh Agrawal appears on behalf of Shri Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocates. For State/ Res. : Shri Ujjawal Choubey, PL. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 13/03/2026 1. This Writ Petition has been filed against the order dated 20.06.2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by Respondent No.6, whereby petitioner has been directed to deposit excess payment made to him amounting to Rs.13,17,766/- in respect of monthly wages, gratuity and leave encashment before Respondent No.7 so that pension case of the petitioner may be decided expeditiously. 2. Reliefs as sought by the petitioner is as follows:- 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 20.06.2023 3 passed by respondent no. 6 (Annexure P/1), is in the interest of justice. 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. 3. Necessary facts of the case are that on 03.02.2011, Respondent no. 4 promoted petitioner from the post of AG-III to Accountant in the office of Respondent No.6 and fixed the salary & increment as per the post of Accountant. On 30.11.2021, petitioner retired from the post of Accountant i.e. Class-III employee from the office of respondent no. 6, which initially controlled by respondent no. 4 after reorganization of new District Gaurela- Pendra-Marwahi, petitioner was under controlled by respondent no. 5. That, on 04.12.2021 respondent no. 6 ordered to provide leave encashment amount to the petitioner. That, the petitioner obtained salary and increment as per the order dated 03.02.2011 upto his retirement from the office of the respondent no. 6. On 20.10.2022 (Annexure P/4) respondent no. 6 serve the notice to the petitioner, whereby directed that petitioner has been paid excess amount during the period from 01.10.2008 to 30.11.2021 to the tune of Rs. 12,11,062/- in salary and gratuity mode. He further directed to the petitioner to deposit the said amount within 7 days, failing which recovery order will be passed. On 20.10.2022, Annexure-P/5, another order was passed by respondent no. 6 whereby he ordered for recovery against the petitioner. On 07.11.2022 , petitioner ( Annexure-P/6) 4 replied the notice of respondent no. 6, whereby stated that he has obtained salary as per the salary fixed by Respondent No.6 and also obtained gratuity and leave encashment amount. On 06.12.2021, 07.11.2022, 16.12.2022 petitioner made request before respondent no. 6 to provide pension and gratuity amount. That, the petitioner has not played any fraud misrepresentation for obtaining questioned amount. It is most respectfully submitted that department paid amount to the petitioner as per the pay fixation and increment, so respondent authority have not entitled to recover the question amount from the petitioner. On 20.06.2023, Respondent No.6 ordered to the petitioner to deposit to the tune of Rs.13,17,766/- before Respondent No.7, which was paid to the petitioner in excess . The said act of respondent authorities is arbitrary, unjust, unwarranted and violation of the natural justice. Hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order dated 20.06.2023 passed by Respondent No.6 is bad in law, perverse, arbitrary and unjust which is violation of principles of natural justice. He submits that without any fault on the part of petitioner, respondent authorities ordered for recovery of the amount Rs.13,17,766/- stating that excess payment has been made to the petitioner. He submits that recovery order has been passed for the excess payment made to the petitioner from 01.01.2006 to 30.11.2021, after lapse of 15 years. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance in the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab Vs. 5 Rafiq Masih (White Washer)1 and would also place reliance in the matter of Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala2 and would pray that this petition may be allowed. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel at the first instance would draw attention of this Court towards Rule 65 of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, which reads as under:- 65. Recovery and adjustment of Government dues.-(1) It shall be the duty of every retiring Government servant to clear all Government dues before the date of his retirement. (2) Where a retiring Government servant does not clear the Government dues and such dues are ascertainable :- (a) an equivalent cash deposit may be taken from him: or (b) out of the gratuity payable to him, his nominee or legal heir, an amount equal to that recoverable on account of ascertainable Government dues shall be deducted. Explanation.-1. The expression "ascertainable Government dues" in-cludes balance of house building or conveyance advance, arrears of rent and other charges pertaining to occupation of Government accommodation, over-payment of pay and allowances and arrears of income-tax deductable at source under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (No. 43 of 1961). 7. Learned State counsel submits that Government of Chhattisgarh, 1 (2015) 4 SCC 334 2 2022 SCC OnLine SC 536 6 Department of Finance and Planning issued a circular dated 06.07.2015, according to which, in case of any wrong pay fixation has been done by the department then opportunity of hearing should be given to the Government servant thereafter speaking order has to be issued. In the present case, vide notice dated 20.10.2022 (Annexure P/4), the Respondent No. 6 directed the petitioner that, he has been paid excess amount to the tune of Rs. 12,11,062/- in salary and gratuity mode, therefore, he was directed to deposit the said amount. Also, an amended order dated 20.10.2022 has been passed by the respondent authority directing the amount to be recovered from the petitioner due to wrong pay fixation. Then, on 07.11.2022, the petitioner replied to the notice stating that, the Department neither paid excess amount nor made paid payment against law to the petitioner. Thereafter, being unsatisfied from the reply of the petitioner the Respondent No. 6 by the order impugned dated 20.06.2023, has directed for recovery against the him. Therefore, it can be said from the above that proper opportunity of hearing as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "Bhagwan Das Shukla Vs Union of India" reported in 1994 (6) SCC 154 was given to the petitioner before passing of the impugned order and as such there is no illegality or infirmity on the part of the respondent authorities. It is also held by this Court in the matter of L.K. Ladiya vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others {WPS No.6459 of 2018} that the Court cannot lose sight of the fact that Rules, 1976 provide power to the State to recover the excess amount but the power has to be exercised in judicial 7 manner as also in conformity with the principles of natural justice. 8. It is submitted by learned State counsel that, the entire proceedings have been conducted in fair manner and nothing has been placed on record by the Petitioner to disclose that, any irregularity has been committed and the procedures are contrary to the rules, as the present petitioner has been given sufficient opportunities of being heard as per the relevant circulars of the State Government and the law laid down in this regard, but the present petitioner being holding the post of Accountant, has totally failed to deposit the excess payment. Thus, in view of the above, petition filed by the Petitioner is vague, baseless, devoid of any merit or substance, thus, deserves to be dismissed. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available with the petition. 10. From the perusal of impugned order dated 20.06.2023 (Annexure P/1), it appears that petitioner was working as an Accountant in the Community Health Centre, Gaurela , district Gaurela Pendra Marwahi, C.G. He was promoted on the said post vide order dated 04.05.2013 and since his promotion he was working in the said CHC from 06.05.2013 till his retirement on 31.11.2021. During the said period, as the petitioner was working as an Accountant, he was working in respect of pay fixation, payment of salary and also doing other financial works in the said office. It transpires that during the said period, he has accepted excess salary payment without verifying pay fixation and service book from the competent 8 officer and in the absence of there being any verification, excess monthly salary has been calculated by him and received. Further, amount of gratuity and leave encashment was also paid in excess because of the reason that the petitioner was the Accountant in the said department i.e. Community Health Centre, Gaurela and he was responsible for pay fixation, grant of service dues, however while calculating the same and while recording the same in the service book, he has not got it verified from the competent officer which goes to show that misrepresentation has been made by the petitioner himself in his own account and excess payment has been received by him due to the said misrepresentation which is against the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra) wherein it has been categorically held that recoveries of alleged excess payment cannot be made in cases where such payment was not occasioned by any misrepresentation, fraud or suppression on the part of the employee, but was solely on account of an error committed by the employer while fixing the pay. The principle has been reiterated in Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 536. 11.The Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly held in the aforesaid judgments that where the employee has not committed any misrepresentation in getting any excess amount then the recovery order against him cannot be made. 12.However, in the present matter, petitioner being the Accountant was responsible for pay fixation as well as for payment of other service dues 9 which was required to be granted to the petitioner but after verification by the competent officer and thereafter only the said amount can be disbursed to the account of the concerned employee. However, the petitioner in order to get the said amount illegally has not got it verified from the higher officers. It is a clear case of misrepresentation made by the petitioner as such, petitioner is liable for a recovery of the amount in question which has rightly been ordered and he deserves no leniency since his conduct is not bonafide as it transpires from the documents that while making misrepresentation he has not got verified the entries in the service books by a competent officer and he himself has calculated the same and has got it paid by the authorities concerned. 13.In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that impugned recovery order dated 20.06.2023 (Annexure P/1) for an amount of Rs.13,17,766/- has rightly been issued against the petitioner which is required to be recovered from him. 14.In the result, this Writ Petition being devoid of merits is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash