Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Khuku Biswas vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 3 January, 2025
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 2590 of 2020
1 - Smt. Khuku Biswas W/o Late A.K. Biswas Aged About 62 Years R/o Gandhi
Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur
Chhattisgarh
2 - Principal Secretary Department Of Finance, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal
Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh
3 - Joint Director And Superintendent Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Memorial Hospital
Raipur Chhattisgarh
4 - The Joint Director Treasury Account And Pension, Raipur Chhattisgarh
5 - Drawing And Disbursement Officer Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Memorial Hospital
Raipur Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Shri Akash Kumar Kundu, Advocate
For Respondent / State : Shri Pankaj Singh, Panel Lawyer
({Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput})
Order on Board
03/01/2025
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by
the petitioner seeking for the following relief -
"10.1. That, petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may
kindly be pleased to set aside / quash the impugned recovery order dated
07/04/2020 (Annexure P/1) and return back the entire amount of recovery
made from the petitioner.
10.2 Any other relief or reliefs that may be deemed fit and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted."
2. Facts of the case in nutshell is that the petitioner had been working on the post
of Staff Nurse in Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Memorial Hospital, Raipur (CG) and
retired after attaining the age of superannuation in the month of March, 2020. After
her retirement, the impugned order dated 07/04/2020 for recovery of Rs.1,19,136/-
from the retiral dues of the petitioner was issued by respondent No.3.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged recovery was on
account of wrong fixation of pay scale and excess payment for the period from the
year 1987 till 2020. He further submits that the petitioner is a Class III employee and
no recovery can be made after her retirement and the case of the petitioner is squarely
covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab
and ors. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and ors., (2015) 4 SCC 334. He further
submits that identical issue has been decided by this Court in various writ petitions
and one such order has been filed as Annexure P/5 passed in WPS No.8185/2019
(Smt. Geeta Kataria v. State of Chhattisgarh) dated 14/10/2019 who is of the same
department in which the petitioner was working. He submits that the excess amount
was not received by the petitioner on account of any misrepresentation. He further
submits that the amount of Rs.1,19,136/- has already been recovered from the leave
encashment dues of the petitioner.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that excess amount was
received by the petitioner on account of wrong fixation of the pay scale and State is
well within its right to recover the excess payment made. Therefore, the writ petition
does not have any merits and is liable to be dismissed.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
6. None of the parties would dispute that the petitioner is a Class III employee
and retired as Class III employee. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq
Masih (supra) laid down the criteria that no recovery can be made which are culled
out in following manner -
The situations as envisaged in the said judgment are as under :
"(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. Similar issue has come up before this Court in the case of 8185/2019 and
recovery order in that petition was quashed. In the light of above facts and judgment
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra). In the considered
opinion of this Court, impugned order (Annexure P/1) dated 07/04/2020 cannot stand
and hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to pay unpaid retiral dues (if any)
within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If
Rs.1,19,136/- is recovered from the petitioner, the same shall be returned back to her
within a period of 30 days with 6% interest from the date of filing of the writ petition
i.e. 17/06/2020.
Sd/-
({Sachin Singh Rajput })
JUDGE
Deepti
DEEPTI HARIKUMAR
HARIKUMAR Date: 2025.01.07
14:48:35 +0530
