Arvind William v. State Of Chhattisgarh The Secretary, Department Of Public Health Engineering

Mr. Vikas Dubey, Advocate. Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer. SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board

09.12.2025 (1) This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing of recovery of Rs.75,218/- which was made from the petitioner after the retirement due to erroneous pay fixation for the period 01.01.2006 to 01.01.2016 though the petitioner was retired from service on 31.05.2018. (2) Case of the petitioner is that he was appointed on the post of Hand Pump Mechanic on 21.05.1983 in the Department of Public Health Engineering. After completion of services in the Department, the petitioner was superannuated from the service on 31.05.2018. However, after retirement the office of Joint Director, Treasury, Account and Pension found that wrong fixation has been in respect of the petitioner for the period 01.01.2006 to 01.01.2016. Thereafter, vide order dated 06.03.2019 (Annexure-P/4), respondent No.4 amended the pay scale of the petitioner and after revised calculation, the Authorities found that excess amount of Rs.75,218/- has been paid to the petitioner and pass recovery order for the same. Subsequently, the petitioner paid the said amount by way of Challan dated 15.03.2019 (Annexure-P/8) to the Treasury department in order to get other pensionary benefits. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for the 3 following reliefs:- "i. To kindly call for the records of the case from the respondents. ii. To kindly quash the recovery amount of Rs.75,218/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand Two Hundred Eighteen Only) made from the petitioner and direct the respondents to return back the recovered amount to the petitioner with penal interest. iii. To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case." (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. 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. He also submits that the petitioner has already paid the recovery amount by way of challan on

15.03.2019. Therefore, this petition may be allowed and appropriation direction may be issued for refund of amount to the petitioner. 1 (2015) 4 SCC 334 (4) Learned counsel for the respondent/State would oppose the prayer 4 of the petitioner and submits that as the petitioner/employee himself has filed an undertaking for refund of excess payment so made on 03.08.1998, 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 rungs of service would spend whatever emoluments he receives for the upkeep of his family and if he receives an excess payment for a 2 3 4