2026:CGHC:9720 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1120 of 2025 Chitrarekha Uikey W/o Late Indrajit Uikey Aged About 28 Years Working As Peon At O/o The District Treasury Balod District - Balod (C.G.)

... Petitioner(s)

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Accounts And Treasury Department Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar District-

Raipur (C.G.)

2 - The Divisional Joint Director Account And Pension Durg District - Durg (C.G.)

3 - The District Treasury Officer Office Of District Treasury Blod District - Blod (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Khulesh Sahu, P.L.

(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE PARTH PRATEEM SAHU)

Order on Board

24/02/2026

1. Petitioners have filed this petition seeking following relief (s) :-

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside impugned recovery letters, dated 06.01.2025 & 09.01.2025 (Annexure-P/1) in the ends of justice.

10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or suitable direction to the respondent authorities to release the death-cum retirement gratuity amount payable to the petitioner with @ 18% penal interest till the realization of the payment.

10.3 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly allow any other relief as deem fit and proper.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of the petitioner while working on the post of AG-III and posted in the office of District Treasury Balod, died in harness on 03.07.2023. Respondent authorities only thereafter, had issued a letter to the petitioner i.e. widow of the deceased employee, asking her to give consent for recovery of the excess payment made to husband of the petitioner, during his life time, said action on the part of the respondents is arbitrary and illegal. He contended that as the petitioner has not given consent as sought for by the respondents, the entire death-cum retiral dues of the petitioner has been withheld. It is contention of counsel for the petitioner that, as the recovery of an amount paid in excess to an employee towards the salary, it cannot be recovered after his death from death-cum retiral dues. He placed reliance upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, to support his contention.

3. Counsel for the respondent would submit that excess payment is paid to the late husband of the petitioner due to wrong fixation of pay, the amount paid in excess is a loss to the Government ex-chequer, and therefore, the proceedings have been initiated for recovery of the said amount.

4. Upon asking learned counsel for the respondent, as to whether, any proceedings was earlier initiated in the life time of the husband of the petitioner for recovery, he fairly submitted that no such pleadings has been made in the reply nor any document is enclosed in this regard.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rafiq Masih (supra) has considered as to in which circumstances, the recovery from an employee is permissible and observed thus:

“18 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 entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:

(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service).

(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.

(iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.

(iv) Recovery in cases where an