##PAGE1##

1 / 7

2026:CGHC:14837

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPS No. 2409 of 2025

Abhash Kumar Shrivastava S/o Late Rajendra Prasad Shrivastava Aged About 64 Years (Retired Assistant Grade-2 Mandi Ambikapur) Resident Of House No. 129/1, Masjidpara, Gayatri Ward No.-3, Sitapur, District : Surguja

(Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Agriculture, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Naya, Naya Raipur,

P.O./p.S. Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2 - Chhattisgarh State Agriculture Marketing (Mandi) Board Through The Managing Director, Beej Bhavan, G. E. Road, Telibandha, Atal Nagar, Naya

Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3 - Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Through The Secretary, Office Of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Chhattisgarh State Agricultural Marketing Board Through The Joint

Secretary, Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner : Mr. Ritesh Verma, Advocate Digitally For Resp. No.1 : Mr. Love Sharma, Panel Lawyer signed by PRAVEEN

KUMAR SINHA Date:

2026.04.01

19:04:48 +0530

2 / 7

For Resp. No.2 to 4 : Mr. Navoday Singh, Advocate

S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

Order on Board

30/03/2026

1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, this

case is heard finally.

2. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-

“ 10.1 that, the Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to quash the recovery Order No./Mandi/Acc./Family Pension/2024-25/579 Ambikapur, dated 15.1.2025 issued by the respondent No. 3, Secretary Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Ambikapur, Surguja (C.G.) (Ann. P/1) at

an earliest.

10:2. that, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ or direction to the respondents to pass an order/direction to the respondents to pay the amount already recovered Rs. 1, 26, 229/- from the petitioner at

the rate of interest of 12% per annum.

10.3. that, the respondents may kindly be directed that they should not penalize the petitioner for their own fault and they may be directed to compensate the petitioner for his faulty order of recovery. The Hon'ble Court may kindly pass any order or issue any suitable writ or direction as may deem fit under the

circumstances of the case..”

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner while working on the post of Assistant Grade-II in respondent – Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Ambikapur, stood retired from service after attaining

3 / 7

age of superannuation on 30.06.2022. At the time of his retirement petitioner was paid retrial dues including amount of Rs.3,13,296/- towards leave encashment of 240 days. Petitioner was served with letter/ notice dated 15.01.2025 asking for recovery of sum of Rs.1,76,229/- on the ground that petitioner has been paid excess amount towards leave encashment. Recovery is sought after about more than 2 and ½ years from date of retirement and therefore recovery of excess amount from petitioner who is a Class-III Employee is not permissible in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab & ors vs. Rafiq Masih (White

Washer) & ors, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 4 would vehemently oppose submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that it is not the payment made in part during period of time but a lump sum amount has been paid to petitioner in excess while making payment of retiral dues. However, he does not dispute the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that recovery is sought from petitioner after more than 2

and ½ years from the date of retirement.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the

documents annexed along with writ petition.

6. Recovery which is made from petitioner is in respect of excess payment made towards leave encahsment. It is not the