2026:CGHC:16954 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1692 of 2025 Ratan Bahadur S/o Late Shri Dhan Bahadur Aged About 64 Years R/o Narayani Homes Sambalpur Sakari P.S. And Tahsil Sakri District -

Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Department Of Home/ Police Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Police Station And Post Rakhi Atal Nagar Naya Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Inspector General Of Police (Igp) Office Of Inspector General Of Police Chhattisgarh Armed Force (Caf) Police Headquarter (Phq) Sector - 19 Police Station And Post Rakhi Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District -

Raipur (C.G.)

3 - Divisional Joint Director O/o Divisional Joint Director Treasury Account And Pension Bilaspur Division District - Bilaspur (C.G.)

4 - Commandant Officer Of Commandant Second Battalion Chhattisgarh Armed Force (Caf) Sakri District - Bilaspur (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rishabh Dev Sahu on behalf of Mr.

Abhishek Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aditya Tiwari, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

Order on Board

13/04/2026

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for the following reliefs:

10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to produce all the relevant records relating to case of the petitioner before this Hon’ble Court for its kind perusal.

10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the impugned certificate/ recovery order dated 03.08.2022 against the petitioner for an amount of Rs. 4,10,871/- issued by the respondent no. 4 Commandant, 2^nd Battalion, Sakri, Bilaspur, C.G.

(Annexure P/1).

10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the impugned recovery order dated 13.09.2022 against the petitioner for an amount of Rs. 4,10,871/- issued by the respondent no. 3 Divisional Joint Director, Treasury-Account and Pension, Bilaspur, C.G.

(Annexure P/2).

10.4 That, the Hon’ble High Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to refund the whole deducted amount to the petitioner i.e. Rs. 4,10,871/- along with the interest of 18% per annum which has been deducted due to the above mentioned impugned recovery orders issued by Respondent no. 3 and 4.

10.5 That, this Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to direct respondents to give suitable compensation to the petitioner for the mental trauma and agony, harassment and hardships suffered by him as also cost of the litigation.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner while working as Constable (Trade) under the office of respondent no. 4, after attaining the age of superannuation retired from service w.e.f. 31.07.2022 and after retirement, the respondent no. 4 issued recovery order against the petitioner for a total amount of Rs. 4,10,871/- in which Rs. 43,000/- deducted from the salary of petitioner and remaining amount of Rs. 3,67,871/- deducted from the gratuity of the petitioner which is evident from Annexure P/2. He submits that even if for some error on the part of respondents department, some excess payment is made towards salary to petitioner, who is Class-III employee, then also recovery after retirement is not permissible under the law. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, in case of Thomas Daniel Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. (2022) SCC Online SC 536, and in case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others vs. Jagdev Singh, reported in (2016) 14 SCC 267, and submits that recovery of amount paid mistakenly to Grade-III employee is not permissible. He further contended that from such employee even if some consent is obtained subsequent to making of excess payment then also recovery is not permissible and placed reliance on the order passed y the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 264/2020 (State of CG Vs Labha