1 - Krishna Kumar Verma S/o Late Dukhutram Verma, Aged About 62 Years R/o v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Health, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Atal
Case Details
NIRMALA RAO 1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4534 of 2022 1 - Krishna Kumar Verma S/o Late Dukhutram Verma, Aged About 62 Years R/o Jalvihar Colony, Lalbahadur Shastri Ward, Bhatapara District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Health, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - District Medical Officer, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. 3 - Block Medical Officer, Bhatapara District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Joint Director, Treasury, Pension And Account, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner For Respondents/State : :
Legal Reasoning
Shri Vijay Mishra, Advocate, holding the brief of Shri Ashok Soni, Advocate. Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy.G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 25.08.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:- “10.1) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner 2 from the possession of the respondents for its kind perusal. 10.2) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the letter dated 25.05.2022 issued by the respondent no. 3 (Annexure P/1). 10.3) Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Radiographer under the respondents on 20.8.1981. The petitioner stood retired from services on account of superannuation on 31.1.2022. The service book of the petitioner was sent for verification to the office of the Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts and Pension, and the excess payment made to the petitioner was detected. Consequently, an order of recovery was issued on 25.5.2022 by the Block Medical Officer, Community Health Center, Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar – Bhatapara. He would contend that the petitioner was a Class-III employee; there was no misrepresentation or fraud on his part; the benefit was erroneously extended by the department, and it continued for a period of 16 years, and the impugned order was passed after his retirement. He would also submit that the impugned order may be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would submit that there was a mistake on the part of the department in extending the benefit of annual increments based on the recommendation made by the Brahma Swaroop Committee. She would further submit that after the retirement of the petitioner, his service book was sent for 3 verification to the office of the Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts and Pension, where this mistake was detected and accordingly, the impugned order was issued. She would also submit that according to the provisions of Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short ‘Rules, 1976’), the amount of excess payment can be recovered from a government servant. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 5. Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, which deals with the recovery and adjustment of Government dues, is reproduced herein below:- “65. Recovery and adjustment of Government dues.— (1) It shall be the duty of every retiring Government servant to clear all Government dues before the date of his retirement. (2) Where a retiring Government servant does not clear the Government dues and such dues are-ascertainable - (a) an equivalent cash deposit may be taken from him; or (b) out of the gratuity payable to him, his nominee or legal heir, an amount equal to that recoverable on account of ascertainable Government dues shall be deducted. - 1. The expression "ascertainable Explanation. Government dues" includes balance of house building or conveyance advance, arrears of rent and other charges pertaining to occupation of Government accommodation, over-payment of pay and allowances and arrears of income- tax deductible at source under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (No. 43 of 1961).” 6. A bare reading of the explanation appended to Rule 65 of the Rules, 1976, would make it clear that the ascertainable government dues include the balance of house building advances, arrears of rent, and overpayment of pay and allowances. The rule further states that it is 4 the duty of every retiring government servant to clear all government dues before retirement. 7. In the present case, no notice was issued to the petitioner prior to the retirement for clearance of any dues. Furthermore, the recovery amount was not a due; rather, it was an excess payment made to the petitioner by the department itself. The mistake committed by the department cannot be treated as ascertainable government dues. Therefore, the contention made by counsel for the State cannot be accepted. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, held as under:- “It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship where payments have mistakenly been made by an employer, in the following situations, a recovery by the employer 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 employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post. (v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover. 5 9. Considering the facts that the petitioner was a Class-III employee; there was no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner with regard to the payment of excess payment; the excess payment continued from 2005 to 2021, and the order of recovery was issued after his retirement; therefore, the same is not sustainable in the eyes of the law. 10. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the law laid
Decision
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petition is allowed and the order (Annexure-P/1) is hereby quashed. The amount, if any, recovered shall be refunded to the petitioner forthwith. The respondents are also directed to finalize the pension case of the petitioner without any further delay. Nimmi Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge