##PAGE1##

1 / 6

2026:CGHC:6594

NAFR

PAWAN

KUMAR

JHA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

Digitally

signed by

PAWAN

KUMAR JHA WPS No. 710 of 2024

• Rati Ram Sonwani S/o Late Shri Heera Lal Sonwani Aged About 63 Years

R/o Ward No. 13, Chorbhatti, P.S. Pathariya, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

... Petitioner

versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department,

Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District : Raipur,

Chhattisgarh

2. The District Education Officer Distt. Mungeli, C.G.

3. The Divisional Joint Director Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Bilaspur,

District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

4. The District Treasury Officer Mungeli, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

5. The Block Education Officer Pathariya, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

... Respondents

For Petitioners : Mr. G.L. Uike, Advocate

For Respondent-State : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Panel Lawyer

Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

ORDER ON BOARD

05/02/2026

1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs.

“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be

pleased to set-aside the impugned recovery

order (Annexure P-1) and further be pleased

to direct the respondent authorities to refund

the recovered amount of Rs. 2,92,365 to the

petitioner, with interest @ 12% per annum

from the date of recovery to its payment.

10.2 That, any other relief/ order which may

deem fit and just in the facts and

circumstances of the case, including award of

the cost of the petition may be given.”

2 / 6

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner while working on the

post of Upper Division Teacher stood retire from service upon attaining age

of superannuation on 30.04.2023. During process of payment of retiral dues,

respondent-authorities while preparing authority letter for disbursement of

gratuity have mentioned that a sum of Rs. 2,92,365 is recoverable from

petitioner on the ground that excess payment has been made to petitioner

during the period when petitioner was in service. Respondent-authorities

have deducted sum of Rs. 2,92,365 from the account for which petitioner

was entitled. It is contention of learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner is

Class-III employee, however, retired from service on 30.04.2023 and

therefore also after retirement recovery of amount if paid in excess cannot be

made from him. Therefore, action on the part of respondent-department in

deducting the amount as mentioned towards excess payment is per se illegal

and arbitrary. In support of his contention he places reliance upon decision

in case of State of Punjab & ors vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & ors,

reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, Thomas Daniel vs. State of Kerala reported

in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 536.

3. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned

counsel for petitioner and submits that petitioner gave undertaking for

adjusting the excess amount paid to him and therefore petitioner at this stage

could not be permitted to challenge the deduction made by the respondent-

department pursuant to the undertaking given by him.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. From the arguments which is advanced by learned counsel for the respective

parties it is not in dispute that petitioner stood retired from post of Upper

Division Teacher which is Class-III post. It is also not in dispute that at the

time of fixation of pay, no undertaking was obtained from the petitioner and

only after superannuation, undertaking/ affidavit has been obtained by the

3 / 6

respondent-department to clear the retiral dues for adjustment of excess

payment. Recovery which is sought from petitioner is towards excess

payment made to him during the period while he was in service. It is not the

case of respondents that excess payment is made to petitioner due to

misrepresentation or suppression of fact or any fraud played by petitioner

with respondent-department.

6. In case of Rafiq Masih (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court considering the

issue of recovery of amount paid in excess has sum