Surendra Kumar Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Surendra Kumar Gupta S/o Late Bhogilal Gupta, Aged About 63 Years Retired Head Master At Govt. Middle School Aamapali, Block Pussore, Present Address R/o Lal Tanki Road, Kewta Para Raigarh, DistrictRaigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶10

... Petitioner(s)

¶11

versus

¶12

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶13

2. Director Public Instructions Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Naya Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶14

3. Joint Director, Treasury Accounts And Pension, Bilaspur, Division , Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶15

4. District Education Officer, Raigarh Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh

¶16

... Respondent(s)

¶17

For Petitioner	: Mr. Dhani Ram Patel, Advocate
For Respondent/ State	: Mr. Hariom Rai, P.L.

¶18

Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

¶19

Order on Board

¶20

23/07/2026

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has challenged the PPO dated 28.04.2026 whereby his pay has been wrongly fixed by taking the pay as Rs. 67,200/- instead of Rs.

¶22

2

¶23

69,200/- and a recovery of Rs. 3,75,981/- has been directed to be adjusted from his gratuity. He submits that the petitioner was validly granted two advance increments pursuant to the orders of this Court, which are duly reflected in his service book, and therefore the impugned recovery and reduction in pay are illegal. He further submits that recovery from a retired employee is impermissible in law as per the law laid down in case of State of Punjab & Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334 . and , therefore, prays for quashment of the impugned PPO to the aforesaid extent.

¶24

Learned State counsel submits that the impugned recovery has been made on account of erroneous pay fixation, resulting in excess payment of public money to the petitioner. It is submitted that prior to effecting the recovery, the calculation sheet was supplied to the petitioner and he had also furnished his consent for adjustment of the excess amount from his gratuity. It is further submitted that since the recovery proceedings had commenced before the petitioner's retirement, the judgments relied upon by the petitioner are not applicable. The excess payment, being public money, is legally recoverable and, therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned PPO.

¶25

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.

¶26

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the

¶27

3

¶28

impugned PPO dated 28.04.2026 directs recovery of a sum of Rs.3,75,981/- from the gratuity payable to the petitioner after his superannuation on 31.12.2025. The recovery has thus been ordered after the petitioner's retirement. In view of the settled legal position governing recovery from retired employees, the direction for recovery contained in the impugned PPO cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed.

¶29

Accordingly, the impugned PPO dated 28.04.2026 is set aside to the limited extent it directs recovery of Rs.3,75,981/- from the petitioner. Liberty is reserved to the respondents to undertake a fresh exercise with regard to fixation of pension/ pay of the petitioner in accordance with law, after affording him an adequate opportunity of hearing. It is, however, made clear that any recovery of the alleged excess payment already made to the petitioner shall be governed by the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (supra). The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of 50 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶30

The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

(Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE

¶33

Jyoti

Surendra Kumar Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Kumar Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yogesh Kumar Mandavi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Subhash Chand Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dhaniram Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Manit Singh Wadhwa Vs Rupchand Agrawal

Vijay Mashrani Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Piyush Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh