PRIYANKA v. State Of Chhattisgarh

: Mr. K.P. Sahu, Advocate : Mr. Ritesh Giri appears on behalf of Mr. For Respondents No.1, : Mr. Santosh Soni, GA Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate 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 Haryana 5, 2 3 4 5