JUDGMENT : 1. By way of this writ petition, petitioner calls in question the order impugned dated 24/09/2015 (Annexure P/3) passed by the High Power Retiral Dues Committee (Pension Dispute Redresser Committee) by which petitioner's representation has been rejected and recovery of Rs. 1,16,273/- deducted from his gratuity has been held to be legal. 2. Mr. Deepak Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the amount of Rs. 1,16,273/- deducted from petitioner's gratuity holding that from 01/01/1986 to 31/07/2007, excess amount has been paid to the petitioner, which is absolutely illegal and as such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. He would rely upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) 2015 (4) SCC 334 to buttress his submission. 3. However, Mr. Amrito Das, learned Additional Advocate General, would submit that by virtue of Rule 65(2) of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, the amount of Rs. 1,16,273/- has rightly been deducted from petitioner's gratuity and no fault can be found in the impugned order, as such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. It is not in dispute that petitioner has been paid all the retiral dues except for Rs. 1,16,273/- which has been deducted from his gratuity finding that from 01/01/1986 to 31/07/2007, the amount of Rs. 1,16,273/- has been paid to him in excess which has thus been deducted from his gratuity. The said finding has been upheld by the High Power Retiral Dues Committee (Pension Dispute Redresser Committee). 6. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice Rule 65 of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, which states as under :- “65. Recovery and adjustment of Government dues.- (1) It shall be the duty of every retiring Government servant to clear all Government dues before the date of his retirement. (2) Where a retiring Government servant does not clear the Government dues and such dues are ascertainable :- (a) an equivalent cash deposit may be taken from him, or (b) out of the gratuity payable to him, his nominee or legal heir, an amount equal to that recoverable on account of ascertainable Government dues shall be deducted.” 7. (2) Where a retiring Government servant does not clear the Government dues and such dues are ascertainable :- (a) an equivalent cash deposit may be taken from him, or (b) out of the gratuity payable to him, his nominee or legal heir, an amount equal to that recoverable on account of ascertainable Government dues shall be deducted.” 7. A careful perusal of sub-rule (2) of Rule 65 would show that if a retiring Government servant has not cleared the Government dues, it can be deducted from the gratuity payable to him. 8. In the instant case, by virtue of Sub-rule 2(b) of Rule 65 of the Pension Rules, 1976, since the excess amount of Rs. 1,16,273/- has already been paid to the petitioner from 01/01/1986 to 31/07/2007 and since the petitioner has not cleared the dues and all the retiral dues have also been paid to him, therefore, the amount of Rs. 1,16,273/- has rightly been recovered from the petitioner by way of deduction from his gratuity. The decision of the Pension Committee holding that the amount of Rs. 1,16,273/- has rightly been deducted from petitioner's gratuity is clearly supported by Rule 65(2)(b) of the Rules of 1976. I do not find any merit in the writ petition. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s).