HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.
Smt. Archana Kose W/o Avinesh Kose - Petitioner
Vs.
State of Chhattisgarh - Respondent
WPS No. 9510 of 2023
Decided On : 16-01-2025
(A) Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 - Rules 9, 65, and 66 - Recovery of Government dues from gratuity - Recovery notice issued after six months of retirement declared illegal - The petitioner was not given a chance to explain expenses before recovery was initiated. (Paras 10, 18, 19)
(B) Legal procedure for recovery - The court emphasized that recoverable dues must be assessed within six months post-retirement, failing which legal recourse is necessary. (Paras 15, 18)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a retired Supervisor, challenged a recovery notice for Rs.3,60,000/- issued after her retirement, claiming she had already submitted necessary documentation.
Findings of Court:
The court found the recovery notice illegal due to the failure to follow prescribed procedures and the lack of evidence that the petitioner was responsible for the expenses.
Issues: The main issues were the legality of the recovery notice and the proper procedure for recovering government dues from a retired employee.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the recovery notice was invalid as it was issued beyond the statutory period and without proper justification.
Result: The impugned order dated 17.03.2023 is set aside, and the respondents are directed to pay the petitioner her gratuity and other dues.
Order :
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.)
1. Heard Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. Akanksha Verma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondents.
2. The petitioner has challenged the illegality and validity of the impugned order dated 17.03.2023 whereby the petitioner has been issued recovery notice dated 17.03.2023 while holding that she has been given advance of Rs.3,60,000/- for conducting the 5 Vision Sanskar Training in the year 2017-18, however, the said expenses has not been adjusted, as such, the petitioner was issued notice dated 15.01.2021 informing her that she has to explain the expenses, however, she has failed to explain he expenses of the aforesaid amount, as such, the said amount was adjusted from gratuity amount of the petitioner. While rejecting her representation dated 17.03.2023.
3. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition with the following reliefs:-
“(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to quash Annexure P/1 and refund balance gratuity of 360000/ with interest of 18% in the interest of justice.
(ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.”
4. Brief facts for disposal of this writ petition are that, the petitioner was working as Supervisor and she was retired on 30.06.2020. After retirement, on 15.01.2021 one notice was issued to her regarding adjustment of Rs.3,60,000/-, in which petitioner replied that the said amount along with bill vouchers have already been given to his superior i.e. the then Supervisor Mr. Rajesh Kshirsagar in the year 2017-18 itself and after retirement, such demand was not proper. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing WPS No.4202/2021, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.08.2021 directing to finalize the pension and gratuity at the earliest as also to release the same forthwith after retaining Rs.3,60,000/- and the claim regarding Rs.3,60,000/- should be considered and decided within a period of 4 weeks. Despite such clear order, no action has been taken by the authorities for grant of pensionary benefits neither anticipatory pension was granted to her.
5. Being aggrieved with the action on the part of the respondent authorities, the petitioner has filed a contempt case bearing Contempt Case (C) No. 540/2022, wherein on 28.04.2022, notices were issued. Again without considering the same, decision was not taken and notice for adjustment has been issued. The petitioner replied that firstly the amount was allotted to Project Officer, namely, Mr. Rajesh Khirsagar and all the vouchers have been submitted to him. But, without considering the reply, again direction has been issued to adjust the amount of Rs.3,60,000/- from gratuity and the same has been recovered from gratuity in an illegal and arbitrary manner.
6. Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as Supervisor at Integrated Child and Development Project Bagbahara, District Mahasamund (C.G.) and she was superannuated on 30.06.2020. After her retirement, a notice dated 15.01.2021 was issued to her regarding adjustment of Rs.3,60,000/- given to her for conducting the 5 Vision Sanskar Training in the year 2017-18, stating that the expenses, bills and vouchers of the same has not been produced and the said amount was not adjusted. The petitioner filed her reply dated 26.07.2021 stating that she has already handed over the bills and vouchers to his superior officer, i.e. the Supervisor, namely Mr. Rajesh Kshirsagar way back in the year 2017-18 itself and when the petitioner was not given pension and other pensionary benefits, she has filed a writ petition bearing WPS No.4202 of 2017 for non-finalization of retiral dues payable to her after retirement, which was decided by order dated 12.08.2021 directing the respondent authorities to make immediate steps for finalization of pension and gratu
Recovery of government dues from gratuity must comply with statutory timelines; failure to do so renders recovery notices illegal.
Recovery of Government dues from a retired servant must occur within six months; otherwise, legal action is required.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that recovery from retiral dues after retirement is impermissible in certain situations, and the protection of pension and gratuity rights of re....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that recovery of government dues from a retiring government servant must be based on proper documentation and should adhere to the principles outli....
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 entitle....
Recovery of excess payments from employees is impermissible when no fault or misrepresentation is established on their part.
Pensionary benefits cannot be withheld without due process confirming liability; audit findings do not constitute Government dues under statutory rules.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.