1 - Leeladhar Sahu S/o Ganesh Ram Sahu Aged About 34 Years Resident Of v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya
Case Details
1 ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2025:CGHC:47578 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4873 of 2023 1 - Leeladhar Sahu S/o Ganesh Ram Sahu Aged About 34 Years Resident Of Village Sale Tahsil Kasdol District Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - District Education Officer District Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) 3 - Principal Guru Ghasidas Higher Secondry School Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.) 4 - Asistant Joint Director Treasury And Pension Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 16.09.2025 2 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following relief(s) :- “10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the recovery (Annexure P-1) and P-2 direction may be issued to release retiral dues without any deduction, in the interest of justice. 10.2. Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case including cost of the petition, may also be granted.” 2. Facts of the present case, in nutshell, are that the father of the petitioner, Late Shri Ganesh Ram Sahu, who was serving as a Teacher, died in harness on 24.06.2021, and after his demise, neither pension nor gratuity has been released, rather directions for recovery of alleged excess payment have been issued. The objection raised is that the deceased employee was not entitled to two advance increments granted to him in the year 2011, on the ground that he was appointed after 16.06.1993, relying upon a subsequent circular dated 07.03.2020, as reflected in the order of the Assistant Joint Director (Annexure P-1). Further, vide letter dated 24.11.2021, it has been communicated that due to such recovery, the petitioner is not being granted pension and gratuity (Annexure P-2). It is pertinent that the deceased employee was extended the benefit of two advance increments pursuant to the order of this Hon’ble Court in WPS No. 2480/2011, and during his entire service tenure, no objection was ever raised, nor can such 3 benefit be withdrawn posthumously on the basis of a subsequent circular, as evident from his service book (Annexure P-3). It is a settled legal position that after the death of an employee, no recovery can be initiated against his legal heirs, who are not in a position to defend the claims pertaining to service benefits of the deceased, particularly when from 2011 till his death no objection was raised, and further when the deceased neither sought the increments on his own nor made any misrepresentation. The subsequent circular, therefore, cannot retrospectively take away a benefit granted nearly a decade earlier. In fact, in an almost identical matter, Rupesh Dahariya vs. State of Chhattisgarh, this Hon’ble Court has categorically held that no recovery can be made from a deceased employee, and retiral dues are liable to be released without any deduction. Hence this petition. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner respectfully submits that the father of the petitioner, Late Shri Ganesh Ram Sahu, who was serving as a Teacher, died in harness, yet the pension and gratuity payable to him have not been released, and instead, directions for recovery of alleged excess payment have been issued. The said recovery has been sought on the basis that the deceased employee was not entitled to two advance increments granted in the year 2011, relying upon a subsequent circular dated 07.03.2020, though no such objection was ever raised during his lifetime. It is further submitted that the deceased employee was granted the said increments pursuant to the order of this Hon’ble 4 Court in WPS No. 2480/2011, and from 2011 till his demise, no challenge or objection was taken by the authorities. It is a settled proposition of law that after the death of an employee, no recovery can be initiated against his legal heirs, as they cannot defend the claim of the deceased, particularly when no misrepresentation was made by him and no undue benefit was availed. The subsequent circular cannot operate retrospectively to nullify benefits conferred nearly a decade earlier. In fact, in Rupesh Dahariya (supra), this Court has held that no recovery can be effected from a deceased employee and has directed release of retiral dues without any deduction. Hence, the action of the respondents in withholding pension and gratuity on such grounds is illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in law, and the petitioner is entitled to full release of retiral benefits without deduction. 4. Learned counsel for the State respectfully submitted that the petitioner has filed the instant petition based on selective documents without presenting the full facts necessary for just adjudication. The petitioner’s father was appointed as Assistant Teacher after 16/06/1993, when the M.P./Chhattisgarh Arajpatrit Tritiya Varg Shaikshanik Seva Bharti Tatha Padonnati Niyam, 1973 (Rules, 1973) was amended to make B.Ed./D.Ed. a mandatory minimum qualification for appointment. Prior to this amendment, possession of B.Ed./D.Ed. was considered an additional qualification warranting two advance increments as an incentive, but after 16/06/1993, this qualification became 5 essential, and such increments were not permissible. Although a 2007 circular granted increments to teachers appointed before this date who obtained these qualifications at their own expense, the State Government subsequently clarified via orders dated 01/12/2016 and 07/03/2020 that teachers appointed post- 16/06/1993, including the petitioner’s father, are not entitled to these increments. This position was upheld by the Division Bench in W.A. No.130/2014, which rejected extension of benefits beyond the cut-off date. Consequently, excess increments previously granted to the petitioner’s father were rightly recovered during pension finalization, a decision neither challenged nor revoked. The petitioner’s reliance on contrary judgments is misplaced, as those do not apply to appointments after the amendment date. Hence, the respondents’ actions are lawful, proper, and free from illegality, and the petition lacks merit and should be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record with due care and utmost circumspection. 6. It would be relevant at this juncture to take note of the observations and directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) 1 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding the said matter has laid down certain situations under which the recovery 1 2015 AIR SCW 501 6 is totally impermissible under law. The situations as envisaged in the said judgment are being reproduced herein below :- "(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." 7. The aforesaid view in Rafiq Masih (supra) has again been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court recently in the case of Thomas Daniel Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. 2 . 8. In the instant case, from the facts itself it is evidently clear that the case of the Petitioner falls within the situations provided in said 2 Civil Appeal No.7115 of 2010 decided on 02.05.2022 7 Judgment of Rafiq Masih (supra). Moreover, it is the case where the employee has died in harness and, if that be the situation, the legal heirs should not be made to suffer for any excess payment erroneously paid by the Respondents to the deceased employee. Therefore, the Petitioner has the right for the entire retiral dues payable to him on the death of his father i.e. the deceased employee. 9. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix and the legal position as it stands, the impugned Order of recovery (Annexure P-1) is liable to be and is accordingly set aside/quashed. 10. Respondent Authorities are directed to ensure that the entire retiral dues payable to the Petitioner, without insisting or enforcing the order of recovery which has been quashed by this Court, be released to the petitioner and other legal heirs, if any, in accordance with the Rules governing the field, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order without deducting any amount. 11. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of to the extent indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Saxena