1 CGHC010119842026 2026:CGHC:34293 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3024 of 2026 Birbhadra Dewangan S/o Late Shri Padumnath Dewangan Aged About 64 Years Retired Forest Ranger R/o.- Village- Dewanganpara Ward No. 09, Narayanpur Forest Division Narayanpur Distt.- Narayanpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Forest And Climate Changes Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Divisional Forest Officer Narayanpur Forest Division Narayanpur Distt.- Narayanpur (C.G.) 3 - Chief Conservator Of Forest Kanker Division Distt.- Kanker (C.G.) 4 - The Principal Accountant General, State Of Chhattisgarh, Avinash Garden City, Zero Point, Opp. Vidhan Sabha Road, Barauda, Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) …. Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bharat Lal Dembra, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Ms. Akanksha Verma, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Ashwani Shukla, Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2026.08.06 10:49:41 +0530 2 05/08/2026 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner, who is a retired Class-III employee, seeks quashment of the impugned recovery order dated 08.04.2025 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondent authority, whereby an amount of Rs.4,88,891/- was proposed to be recovered from him. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner retired from the post of Ranger on 31.07.2022 upon attaining the age of superannuation. It is submitted that after his retirement, a notice dated 05.08.2024 was issued alleging that during his posting in Narayanpur Circle between 04.07.2009 and 23.08.2013, the Sagon plantation carried out during the year 2010-11 was found to be largely unsuccessful upon subsequent inspection. Although the petitioner submitted his reply, the respondent authorities thereafter passed the impugned recovery order dated 08.04.2025 directing recovery of Rs.4,88,891/- from him. Learned counsel submits that the recovery has been ordered after the petitioner's retirement in respect of alleged acts pertaining to a period more than a decade old and is wholly arbitrary and unsustainable in law. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334 and the decision of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in R. Balraj Goud vs. The State of Telangana & Ors. (W.P. No.18888 of 2019). 3 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that upon inspection, the plantation carried out during the petitioner's tenure was found to be largely unsuccessful, causing hefty loss to the Government. After issuing notice and considering the petitioner's reply, the competent authority passed the impugned recovery order. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order has been passed in accordance with law and does not warrant any interference by this Court. 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.4,88,891/- from the petitioner after his retirement on the allegation of alleged loss caused due to unsuccessful plantation during his tenure, particularly when there is no allegation of any misrepresentation or fraud on his part. 6. It is not the case of the respondent/State that before issuance of the impugned recovery order, any disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner during his service period. It is also not in dispute that the impugned order has been passed after the retirement of the petitioner and in respect of alleged irregularities pertaining to the year 2010-11, after a considerable delay of more than a decade. In such circumstances, the action of the respondents in directing recovery after retirement, without 4 following the prescribed procedure and without conducting any disciplinary enquiry, cannot be sustained in law. 7. In Rafiq Masih (Supra), the Supreme Court held the following situations, where a recovery by the employer would be impermissible in law: “(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service). or (ii) Recovery from retired employees, employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post. (v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover. 11. The principle enunciated in Proposition (ii) above cannot apply to a situation such as in the present case. In the present case, the officer to whom the payment was made in the first instance was clearly placed on notice that any payment found to have been made in excess would be required to be 5 refunded. The officer furnished an undertaking while opting for the revised pay scale. He is bound by the undertaking." 8. The identical issue came up for consideration before the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in R. Balraj Goud (supra), wherein the High Court, while following the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, allowed the writ petition and set aside the action of the authorities. 9. In view of the above and applying the well settled principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the impugned recovery order dated 08.04.2025, whereby an amount of Rs.4,88,891/- has been directed to be recovered from the petitioner, is hereby set aside. 10. The respondents are directed to refund/release the amount, if any, recovered or withheld from the retiral dues of the petitioner pursuant to the impugned order dated 08.04.2025. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 11. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE $. Bhilwar