1 2026:CGHC:14581 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1136 of 2021 * - Ramcharitra Ram Choudhary S/o Late Mohan Ram Aged About 64 Years Assistant Village Panchayat Officer Janpad Panchyat Batouli District Surguja Chhattisgarh R/o Village Bilaspur Block Batouli District Surguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchyat And Rural Development Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchyat Batouli District Surguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Joint Director Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 3/State For Respondent No. 2 : : Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Panel Lawyer Ms. Siddhidatri Kashi, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 27/03/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside the impugned order dated 26.11.2018 issued by respondent No. 3 for recovery of Rs.1,20,528/- from the pension/gratuity amount of the petitioner ANNEXURE P/1. 10.2 Any other relief or reliefs may also be granted to the petitioner which this Hon’ble court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.03.30 11:35:06 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that without assigning any reason, the order of recovery of Rs.1,20,528/- was passed by respondent No. 3 on 26.11.2018. He would submit that the order of recovery was passed after retirement. The petitioner retired from the post of Assistant Grade-III which is Class-III post. He would contend that there is no whisper in the return or in the order impugned as to why decision was taken by the respondent authorities to issue an order of recovery. 3. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondents No. 1 & 3 and learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 would submit that the decision was taken by respondent No. 3 after verification of the account of the petitioner. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the instant petition. 5. Taking into consideration the fact that there is no allegation that there was any misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner, any excess payment was made on account of mistake committed by the petitioner, and further the petitioner was a Class-III employee and decision was taken and an order Annexure P/1 dated 26.11.2018 was passed after his retirement, therefore, the order Annexure P/1 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is hereby quashed. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti