Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 8328
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J
Lakhanlal Kosariya – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPS No. 1320 of 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Abhishek Pandey, Ms. Priya Agrawal
For the Respondents: Shri Raj Kumar Gupta
Post-retirement recovery orders from employees are invalid if issued without misrepresentation or for errors detected long after the fact.
Headnote:(A) Chhattisgarh Pay Revision Rules, 2009 and 2017 - Recovery orders - The petitioner, a retired Class-III employee, challenged an order of recovery issued post-retirement, claiming no misrepresentation and error detected after five years - Established that orders on recovery post-retirement are invalid under Supreme Court precedent. (Paras 2, 5)
(B) Employment Law - Principles governing recovery orders from employees' retirement benefits - No prospective undertaking is binding if not stipulated in rules. (Para 5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner retired from his position and an order for recovery of Rs. 54,179 was initiated, citing a pay scale miscalculation that was later detected.
Findings of Court:
The recovery order was quashed, and it was ruled that the respondent authorities must refund the deducted amount with interest.
Issues: The legality of post-retirement recovery and the binding nature of undertakings not prescribed in statutory rules were key concerns identified by the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that recovery orders issued post-retirement without misrepresentation are invalid, guided by established Supreme Court rulings.
Result: The petition was allowed, the recovery order quashed, and the refund directed with interest.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenged recovery order post-retirement. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. respondent argued for enforcement of recovery. (Para 3) |
| 3. court observed misrepresentation absence was crucial. (Para 4) |
| 4. recovery order quashed based on legal precedent. (Para 5) |
| 5. petition was disposed of with directions for refund. (Para 6) |
Order on Board
22.07.2025
1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:-
“10.1 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.
10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned recovery order dated 03/06/2018 issued by respondent No.4 Jail Superintendent District Jail Mahasamund (Annexure P-2)
10.3 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to refund the deducted amount i.e. 54,179/- to the petitioner which has been deducted by way of recovery order dated 03/06/2018.
10.4 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to give suitable compensation to the petitioner for mental harassment and agony.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner retired from the post of the Head Warden, District Jail, Mahasamund, on 31.3.2018. He would contend that after retirement, an order of recovery amounting to Rs. 54,179/- was issued on 3.6.2018 by respondent No.4/ Jail Superintendent, Mahasamund. He would further contend that the pay scale of the petitioner was wrongly fixed by the department itself, and it continued from July 2011 to March, 2018. The petitioner retired on 31.3.2018, and the order of recovery was issued thereafter. He would also contend that there was no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner; the petitioner was a Class-III employee, and the mistake was detected by the department after more than five years. The issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, (2015) 4 SCC 334 and Jogeswar Sahoo and Ors. vs. The District Judge, Cuttack and Ors. , arising out of SLP(C) No. 5918 of 2024. He would pray to allow this petition.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that an undertaking was given by the petitioner, and the excess payment made to the petitioner has already been recovered.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record.
5. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner was a Class-III employee and that there was no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner; the order of recovery has been passed after retirement, and the mistake was detected by the department after five years, in my opinion, the order of recovery is hereby quashed applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra) and Jogeshwar Sahoo (supra). The respondent authorities are directed to refund the amount to the petitioner along with interest @ 6% per annum. Any undertaking given by the petitioner shall not be binding, as there is no such provision in the Chhattisgarh Pay Revision Rules , 2009 and 2017.
6. With the aforesaid observation(s), this petition is disposed of. No cost(s).
