1 CGHC010223432026 2026:CGHC:42551 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4527 of 2026 Onkar Prasad Dewangan S/o Than Singh Dewangan Aged About 63 Years R/o Sichai Colony, Nandelibhata, Sakti District Sakti Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Water Resources Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Chief Engineer Minimata (Hasdev) Bango Project, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3 - Executive Engineer Minimata Bango Nagar Division No. 06 Nandelibhatha, Sakti Chhattisgarh 4 - Sub Divisional Officer Nahar Sub-Division No. 04, Sakti District Sakti Chhattisgarh 5 - Director Treasury, Account And Retiral District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. KPS Gandhi, Advocate For State/Respondent : Ms. Sakshi Bajpai, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru) Order on Board 30/09/2026 ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2026.10.01 10:23:52 +0530 2 1. The petitioner has called in question the order dated 15.04.2026 (Annexure P-1), whereby the respondents have directed recovery of an amount of Rs.4,89,141/- on the premise that excess gratuity had been paid to the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed without affording any proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is submitted that no show-cause notice or notice proposing recovery of the aforesaid amount was served upon the petitioner before passing the impugned order. It is further submitted that the question as to whether the period of service rendered by the petitioner from 01.03.1988 onwards is liable to be counted for determination of his gratuity/retiral dues involves factual and legal issues which could not have been decided behind the back of the petitioner. 3. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, submits that the amount of gratuity had been determined earlier in accordance with the applicable rules and that subsequently, upon scrutiny of the retiral papers, an anomaly was noticed. It is submitted that the competent authority is required to re-determine the retiral dues in accordance with the applicable statutory rules and, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. From the pleadings and the documents placed on record, it appears that the controversy between the parties is essentially with regard to the 3 manner in which the petitioner's qualifying service is to be reckoned for the purpose of determination of gratuity/retiral dues and the consequent recovery of Rs.4,89,141/-. 6. However, before taking any decision adverse to the petitioner resulting in recovery of a substantial amount from his retiral benefits, the respondents were required to afford the petitioner an effective and meaningful opportunity of hearing. Admittedly, no proper notice/show- cause notice proposing such recovery and giving the petitioner an opportunity to place his explanation and relevant service documents has been shown to have been issued to him before passing the impugned order. The issue is not merely an arithmetical correction. 7. The petitioner's specific case is that he rendered continuous service from 01.03.1988 till his retirement in 2025, whereas the respondents have proceeded on the basis that the relevant qualifying service is to be reckoned only from 29.08.2008. The respondents, on the other hand, contend that the gratuity was earlier determined by including the period rendered as a daily-wage employee as well as under Work Charged and Contingency Paid Establishment and that the same requires re- determination under the applicable Rules. Thus, the rival claims require consideration by the competent authority after giving due opportunity to the petitioner. 8. It is trite that whenever an administrative action entails adverse civil consequences, strict adherence to the principles of natural justice is indispensable unless specifically excluded by statute. A recovery order 4 affecting the pecuniary rights of an employee undoubtedly visits him with civil consequences and, therefore, cannot be sustained if passed in violation of the rule of audi alteram partem. Compliance with the principles of natural justice is not an empty formality but a substantive safeguard against arbitrary exercise of power. 9. In the present case, since the impugned order has admittedly been passed without granting the petitioner any prior notice or opportunity of hearing, the same stands vitiated on account of violation of the principles of natural justice. This Court, therefore, is not required to examine the merits of the proposed recovery or the rival claims of the parties, as the impugned order itself is liable to be set aside on the aforesaid limited ground. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 15.04.2026 (Annexure P-1) cannot be sustained, having been passed without affording the petitioner a proper opportunity of hearing. 10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 15.04.2026 (Annexure P-1), insofar as it directs recovery of Rs.4,89,141/- from the petitioner, is hereby quashed. The respondents shall, however, be at liberty to undertake fresh determination of the petitioner's gratuity and other retiral dues strictly in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions/rules. 11. The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE ashu