DWIVEDI v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Director Health Services, Indravati

: Mr. Suresh Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer. SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board

16.12.2025 (1) This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the recovery order dated 05.11.2018 (Annexure-P/1) for amount of Rs.46,313/- which was made from the petitioner after the retirement due to calculation mistake in the salary for the period 01.01.1996 to July, 2017 though the petitioner was retired from post of Dresser under the respondent/Department on 31.07.2017. (2) Case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was retired from the post of Dresser on 31.07.2017 while working under the office of Block Medical Officer Marvahi. However, after retirement the concerned Authority has issued recovery order dated 05.11.2018 referring the letter of Treasury Department against the petitioner alleging that wrong calculation has been made in the salary of the petitioner from 01.01.1996 till July, 2017. Hence, the petitioner filed this petition alleging that he belongs to Class-III category employee and there is no fault on the part of the petitioner and such recovery is impermissible in law and prayed for the following reliefs:- 3 "10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records of the case, from the respondents offices.

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 05.11.2018 passed by the BMO Marvahi District Bilaspur with its all ancillary effect.

10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to decide the pension case of the petitioner as early as possible by fixing the time period.

10.4 That any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may also be granted in favour of the petitioners against the respondents." (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 also submits that the petitioner has paid the said recovery amount in order to get pensionary benefits. 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. He also submits that in similar writ petition this Court has decided the case in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 06.10.2025 passed in WPS No.6309/2019. Therefore, this petition may be allowed, impugned 1 (2015) 4 SCC 334 4 recovery order may be quashed and amount which has been paid may be refunded to the petitioner. (4) Learned counsel for the respondent/State would oppose the prayer of the petitioner and submits that as the petitioner/employee himself has filed an undertaking for refund of excess payment, therefore, recovery made by the respondent/Authority is just and proper. In support of his submission, he places reliance in the matters of High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Ors vs. Jagdev Singh2 and Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Ors Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Ors3. In view of such submission, he prays to dismiss the petition. (5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. (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 2 3 4