2025:CGHC:57939 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3657 of 2020 Hare Ram Sharma S/o Late Shri R. P. Sharma Aged About 62 Years R/o H. No. 0-3, Vishal Nagar, Behind Chhattisgarh Hotel, Telibandha, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Pin- 492006 ... Petitioner.

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribe Development Department, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2 - The Commissioner Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribe Development Department, Indravati Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3 - The Joint Director Treasure, Account And Pension, Raipur-

Division, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner : Shri Harshmander Rastogi appears on behalf of Ms. Anuja Sharma, Advocates.

For State/res. : Shri Rajeev Bharat, Govt. Advocate.

SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board

28/11/2025

1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the recovery order dated 14.08.2020 (Annexure P/4) for an amount of Rs.2,18,772/- issued by the Respondent No.2 against the petitioner on account of excess payment for the period from January, 2006 to March, 2020 though the petitioner was superannuated on 31.05.2020.

2. Case of the petitioner is that he was appointed on the post of Assistant Statistical Officer which belongs to Class-III cadre and he was superannuated from the service holding the said post on 31.05.2020. After retirement, on 14.08.2020, a recovery order for an amount of Rs.2,18,772/- against the petitioner was issued on account of excess salary payment for the period from January, 2006 to March, 2020. 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 retirement, such recovery is impermissible in law and places reliance in the matter of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)¹. In view of such submission, he prays for the following reliefs:-

10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for all the records of this case.

10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 16.04.2020 (Annexure P-2) directing the recovery after the objection raised by and amendment made by the Respondent No.03.

10.3 Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash impugned order dated 14.08.2020 (Annexure P-4) issued by the Respondent No.02, whereby amount of Rs. 2,18,772.00 has been alleged to recover and be paid in a single deposit via challan.

10.4 Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to release the entire retiral dues (GPF, Leave Encashment. etc.)

of the petitioner.

10.5 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to decide the pension of the petitioner on the basis of last salary drawn by the petitioner.

10.6 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent state that no recovery to

1 (2015) 4 SCC 334

via challan or in any form.

10.7 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.

4. Learned Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the State/respondent would oppose the prayer of the petitioner and would submit that excess payment has been made, therefore, recovery order has been issued by the respondent authorities which is just and proper. In support of his submission, he places reliance in the matters of High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Ors vs. Jagdev Singh² and Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Ors Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Ors³. In view of such submission, he prays to dismiss the petition.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Recently in the matter of Jogeshwar Sahoo & Ors Vs. the District Judge, Cuttack and Ors, be made from the petitioner ina single deposit, an issue came up before the Hon'ble Suprem