##PAGE1##

1

2025:CGHC:61743

Digitally NAFR

signed by

PRIYANKA

PRIYANKA VERMA

VERMA Date:

2025.12.19

17:31:05

+0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPS No. 1437 of 2020

1 - Ratiram Bhagat S/o Sohai Ram Bhagat, Aged About 65 Years R/o

Madhuban, Babbahar, Police Station Patthalgaon, District Jashpur

Chhattisgarh

... Petitioner

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education

Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

2 - The Accountant General, Chhattisgarh, Raipur Chhattisgarh

3 - The Divisional Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts And Pension,

Surguja Division, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh

4 - The District Education Officer, Jashpur, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh

5 - The Block Education Officer, Patthalgaon, District Jashpur

Chhattisgarh

... Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. K.P. Sahu, Advocate

For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Ritesh Giri appears on behalf of Mr.

Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate

For Respondents No.1, : Mr. Santosh Soni, GA

3, 4 & 5/State

2

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari

Order On Board

19/12/2025

1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been

filed challenging the recovery order dated 05.04.2017 (Annexure-P/1)

for an amount of Rs.49,254/-, issued by respondent No.3 against the

petitioner on account of erroneous excess payment, though the petitioner

was superannuated on 31.05.2016.

2. Case of the petitioner is that he was appointed on the post of Headmaster

and retired on 31.05.2016. At the time of settlement of his pension, it

was revealed that excess payment had been made, therefore, while

issuing the authorization letter for payment of retiral dues, respondent

No.3 also passed an order for recovery of an amount of Rs.49,254/-.

Hence, this Petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no recovery is

permissible after retirement, as the petitioner belongs to category of

Class-III employee. He further submits that after the retirement, such

recovery is impermissible in law and places reliance in the matter of

State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)¹

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State would

oppose the prayer of the petitioner and submits that as per the

verification of the service book, an erroneous payment of Rs.49,254/-

was made, to which the petitioner was not entitled. Therefore, in view of

the principles laid down in Punjab and Haryana and Ors vs. Jagdev

1 (2015) 4 SCC 334

3

Singh² and Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Ors vs. State of Uttarakhand

and Ors³, the said recovery is just and proper and he prays to dismiss the

Petition.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents

annexed with the petition carefully.

6. Recently in the matter of Jogeshwar Sahoo & Ors Vs. the District

Judge, Cuttack and Ors⁴, an issue came up before the Hon'ble Supreme

Court that whether recovery of amount extended to the appellants

(therein) while they were in service is justified after their retirement, that

too without affording any opportunity of hearing, wherein, their

Lordships in the Supreme Court observed that restraining back recovery

of excess payment is granted by courts not because of any right in the

employees, but in equity, in exercise of judicial discretion to relieve the

employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is

implemented. It is also observed that a government servant, particularly

one in the lower rungs of service would spend whatever emoluments he

receives for the upkeep of his family and if he receives an excess

payment for a long period, he would spend it, genuinely believing that he

is entitled to it, as any subsequent action to recover the excess payment

will cause undue hardship to him. The material portion of the above

judgment is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-

"8) The law in this regard has been settled by this Court in catena of

judgments rendered time and again; Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana⁵

2 (2016) 14 SCC 267

3 (2012) 8 SCC 417

4 2025 INSC 449 : (SLP (C) No.5918/2024) decid