1 CGHC010270762021 2026:CGHC:39490 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5959 of 2021  Komal Prasad Rathor S/o Sahab Lal Rathor Aged About 63 Years R/o Janhit Chowk, Kota Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur, PIN - 492010 ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary Department Of Higher Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Director, Directorate Of Higher Education, Block III, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla University, Through Its Registrar, Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla University, G.E. Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4. Finance Officer, Pandit Ravi Shankar University Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate For State/Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No. 3 & 4 : Mr. Ashutosh Singh Kachhawaha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 09.09 .2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records of pertaining to the case of the petitioner. SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.09.10 18:10:19 +0530 2 10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased issued writ and quash/set-aside the communication/letters/orders dated 18-01-2021 & 23-09-2021 ANNEXURE-P/1 (Colly) issued by the respondents by which the recovery of amounting to rupees 1,10923/- & 3,15,988/- respectively has been made against the petitioner. 10.3 Any other relief/relief's, which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, with cost of the petition, may also please be granted to the petitioner.” 2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Store Keeper under the respondent No. 3 on 18.11.1983. The petitioner got retired on account of superannuation on 30.06.2020. After retirement, an order of recovery to the tune of Rs. 1,10,923/- was issued on 05.01.2021 and another recovery order to the tune of Rs. 3,15,988/- was issued on premises that excess payment was made to the petitioner due to wrong fixation of pay scale. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that there was no misrepresentation or fraud on part of the petitioner, no opportunity of hearing was afforded and orders of recovery have been issued after superannuation. He would submit that the claim 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. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Ashutosh Singh Kachhawaha, Advocate appearing for respondents No. 3 & 4 would argue that an undertaking was given by the petitioner in accordance with Rule 66 of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short Rules, 1976). He would contend that the petitioner has already deposited a sum of Rs. 1,10,923/- pursuant to order 3 dated 05.01.2021. He would contend that due to mistake, excess payment was made to the petitioner on account of wrong fixation of salary. He would submit that as an undertaking was given by the petitioner, same would be binding upon him according to Rule 66 of Rules, 1976. He would submit that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Mr. Vivek Siddharth Ojha, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would submit that there is dispute between the petitioner and University. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner got retired from services on 30.06.2020 and thereafter he was served with recovery orders dated 05.01.2021 and 23.09.2021. It is not in dispute that those orders were served after expiry of six months from date of retirement. 8. Rule 66, Sub-Rule 3(a) categorically states that efforts should be made to assess and adjust the recoverable Government dues within a period not exceeding six months from the date of retirement of the Government servant and, if no claim is made against the Government servant within such a period it would be presumed that no Government claim excluding claim of house rent and water charges is outstanding against him. 9. Admittedly, in the present case orders of recovery were issued after expiry of six months. The orders of recovery were issued after retirement, benefit of higher pay scale was extended by the department itself and there was no misrepresentation or fraud on part of the petitioner. 10. With regard to recovery proceeding, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra) has summarized the permissible exceptions to 4 recovery in para 18 and has clearly held that recovery in the following cases would be impermissible in law :– “18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service). (ii) Recovery from retired employees, or 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. Having considered the facts of the present case, law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and provision of Rule 66 3(a) of the Rules, 1976, the orders of recovery are not sustainable in the eyes of law and are hereby quashed. 12. In result, writ petition is allowed. 5 13. The recovered amount Rs. 1,10,923/- shall be refunded to the petitioner forthwith at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of deposit till its realization. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant