Order : (Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.) 1. Heard Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. Akanksha Verma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondents. 2. The petitioner has challenged the illegality and validity of the impugned order dated 17.03.2023 whereby the petitioner has been issued recovery notice dated 17.03.2023 while holding that she has been given advance of Rs.3,60,000/- for conducting the 5 Vision Sanskar Training in the year 2017-18, however, the said expenses has not been adjusted, as such, the petitioner was issued notice dated 15.01.2021 informing her that she has to explain the expenses, however, she has failed to explain he expenses of the aforesaid amount, as such, the said amount was adjusted from gratuity amount of the petitioner. While rejecting her representation dated 17.03.2023. 3. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition with the following reliefs:- “(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to quash Annexure P/1 and refund balance gratuity of 360000/ with interest of 18% in the interest of justice. (ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 4. Brief facts for disposal of this writ petition are that, the petitioner was working as Supervisor and she was retired on 30.06.2020. After retirement, on 15.01.2021 one notice was issued to her regarding adjustment of Rs.3,60,000/-, in which petitioner replied that the said amount along with bill vouchers have already been given to his superior i.e. the then Supervisor Mr. Rajesh Kshirsagar in the year 2017-18 itself and after retirement, such demand was not proper. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing WPS No.4202/2021, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.08.2021 directing to finalize the pension and gratuity at the earliest as also to release the same forthwith after retaining Rs.3,60,000/- and the claim regarding Rs.3,60,000/- should be considered and decided within a period of 4 weeks. Despite such clear order, no action has been taken by the authorities for grant of pensionary benefits neither anticipatory pension was granted to her. 5. Being aggrieved with the action on the part of the respondent authorities, the petitioner has filed a contempt case bearing Contempt Case (C) No. 540/2022, wherein on 28.04.2022, notices were issued. Despite such clear order, no action has been taken by the authorities for grant of pensionary benefits neither anticipatory pension was granted to her. 5. Being aggrieved with the action on the part of the respondent authorities, the petitioner has filed a contempt case bearing Contempt Case (C) No. 540/2022, wherein on 28.04.2022, notices were issued. Again without considering the same, decision was not taken and notice for adjustment has been issued. The petitioner replied that firstly the amount was allotted to Project Officer, namely, Mr. Rajesh Khirsagar and all the vouchers have been submitted to him. But, without considering the reply, again direction has been issued to adjust the amount of Rs.3,60,000/- from gratuity and the same has been recovered from gratuity in an illegal and arbitrary manner. 6. Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as Supervisor at Integrated Child and Development Project Bagbahara, District Mahasamund (C.G.) and she was superannuated on 30.06.2020. After her retirement, a notice dated 15.01.2021 was issued to her regarding adjustment of Rs.3,60,000/- given to her for conducting the 5 Vision Sanskar Training in the year 2017-18, stating that the expenses, bills and vouchers of the same has not been produced and the said amount was not adjusted. The petitioner filed her reply dated 26.07.2021 stating that she has already handed over the bills and vouchers to his superior officer, i.e. the Supervisor, namely Mr. Rajesh Kshirsagar way back in the year 2017-18 itself and when the petitioner was not given pension and other pensionary benefits, she has filed a writ petition bearing WPS No.4202 of 2017 for non-finalization of retiral dues payable to her after retirement, which was decided by order dated 12.08.2021 directing the respondent authorities to make immediate steps for finalization of pension and gratuity payable to her at the earliest forthwith after retaining the amount in dispute i.e. Rs.3,60,000/-. A direction was further issued that the respondent authorities would decide the claim in respect of Rs.3,60,000/- within a period of four weeks. A direction was further issued that the respondent authorities would decide the claim in respect of Rs.3,60,000/- within a period of four weeks. This order was informed to the respondent authorities by the petitioner, however, within the said period, when the retiral dues including pension and gratuity was not granted to the petitioner, she filed a contempt case bearing Contempt Case (C) No.450 of 2022, in which, notices were issued and during the pendency of the said contempt case, the impugned order of recovery dated 17.03.2023 was issued against the petitioner. 7. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the amount in dispute has been allotted to the Project Officer, Mr. Rajesh Kshirsagar, but recovery is directed to be made from the petitioner. It has been further contended that the amount cannot be adjusted from gratuity and pension amount of the petitioner as according to Rule 9 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short, “the Rules of 1976”), only His Excellency Governor has the power to make recovery from pension and gratuity amount. Further as per Rule 64(4) of the Rules of 1976, no recovery from pension and gratuity can be made and if so required, the State has to file a suit for recovery of any amount. It has been also contended that the allotted work has already been completed and there was no loss suffered by the State. Since the recovery order has been passed after three years of retirement, as such, no order for recovery can be passed. He placed reliance upon the judgments passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 and Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala and others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 536 . He also placed reliance upon the order passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Dharmu Ram Mandavi v. State of Chhattisgarh and others passed in WPS No.2617 of 2013 decided on 02.09.2024 8. On the other hand, Ms. He also placed reliance upon the order passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Dharmu Ram Mandavi v. State of Chhattisgarh and others passed in WPS No.2617 of 2013 decided on 02.09.2024 8. On the other hand, Ms. Akanksha Verma, learned State counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioner was given advance amount of Rs.3,60,000/- for conducting the 5 Vision Sanskar Training in the year 2017-18 and she was required to submit bills and vouchers in respect of the said amount so that it may be adjusted, however, she has failed to produce the bills and vouchers incurred in the said training. She further submits that the said amount has been transferred to the petitioner by the Project Officer and the petitioner was also In-charge of the said Project. The petitioner became In-charge of the said project, she deliberately sat over the issue and has not informed anyone on the matter and no vouchers or bills etc. have been submitted by the petitioner. After retirement of the petitioner, when this fact was revealed, necessary action has been taken. It is submitted that if any retired employee has not cleared any Government dues, the authorities are required to make deduction from the gratuity amount as per Section 65 of the Rules of 1976, as such, the order impugned dated 17.03.2023 is in accordance with law and has rightly been issued by the authorities to the petitioner. She has relied upon the judgments passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Chandi Prasad Uniyal and others v. State of Uttarakhand and others reported in (2012) 8 SCC 417 and Syed Abdul Qadir and others v. State of Bihar and others reported in (2009) 3 SCC 475 9. I have heard and considered the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the respective parties and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition. 10. From perusal of the documents as also the reply filed by the respondents-State, it is manifestly clear that before retirement of the petitioner, neither any notice was issued nor the petitioner was directed to give explanation regarding advance amount of Rs.3,60,000/-, earlier has been given to the petitioner for conducting the 5 Vision Sanskar Training in the year 2017-18. 10. From perusal of the documents as also the reply filed by the respondents-State, it is manifestly clear that before retirement of the petitioner, neither any notice was issued nor the petitioner was directed to give explanation regarding advance amount of Rs.3,60,000/-, earlier has been given to the petitioner for conducting the 5 Vision Sanskar Training in the year 2017-18. It is not in dispute that the petitioner got superannuated on 30.06.2020 and thereafter, on 15.01.2021, a notice of recovery / adjustment was issued to the petitioner for the first time, however, when the petitioner replied about the same and has explained regarding the said expenses, the respondent authorities have not issued anything. 11. From the conduct of the respondent authorities, it seems that the notices were issued to the concerned project officer, namely Mr. Rajesh Kshirsagar and one Mr. L.E. Tirkey, Assistant Grade-III in respect of the amount in dispute as the responsibility to adjust the amount was upon the District Project Officer. 12. From the documents annexed with the writ petition as well as from return filed by the State-respondents, it is not clear that the amount of Rs.3,60,000/- was entrusted to the petitioner for expenses of the said training programme i.e. “5 Vision Sanskar Training in the year 2017-18”. The State has failed to produce any record in order to establish that it has been given to the petitioner and she has the only person who is responsible for expending and after expenses, the bills and vouchers etc. was given to the Department. 13. From the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners of Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the order passed by this Court, it goes to show that if any recovery notice is required to be issued against the retired person, according to Rule 9 of the Rules of 1976, only His Excellency the Governor is competent to pass such an order. However, in the present matter, it was not passed by His Excellency the Governor. 14. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to the provisions contained in Rules 65 and 66 of the Rules of 1976, which reads 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. 14. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to the provisions contained in Rules 65 and 66 of the Rules of 1976, which reads 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. Explanation.- The expression ‘ascertainable Government dues’ includes balance of house building or conveyance advance, arrears of rent and other charges pertaining to occupation of Government accommodation, over-payment of pay and allowances and arrears of income tax deductable at source under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (No. 43 of 1961). 66. Furnishing of surety by retiring Government servant.- (1) (a) If any of the Government dues (other than those referred to in Rule 65) remain unrealised and unassessed for any reasons, the retiring Government servant may be asked to furnish in Form 8 a surety of a suitable permanent Government servant, holding a pensionable post. (b) If the surety furnished by him is found acceptable, the grant of his pension and gratuity shall not be delayed. (2) (a) If the retiring Government servant is unable or unwilling to furnish a surety, a suitable cash deposit may be taken from him, or such portion of gratuity payable to him, as may be considered sufficient may be held over till the outstanding dues are assessed and adjusted. (b) The cash deposit to be taken or the amount of gratuity to be withheld shall not exceed the estimated amount of the outstanding dues plus twenty-five percent thereof. (c) Where it is not possible to estimate the approximate amount recoverable from the retiring Government servant the amount of deposit to be taken or the portion of gratuity to be withheld shall be limited to ten per cent of the amount of gratuity or one thousand rupees, whichever is less. (c) Where it is not possible to estimate the approximate amount recoverable from the retiring Government servant the amount of deposit to be taken or the portion of gratuity to be withheld shall be limited to ten per cent of the amount of gratuity or one thousand rupees, whichever is less. (3) (a) Efforts shall be made to assess and adjust the recoverable Government dues within a period not exceeding 6 months from the date of retirement of the Government servant and, if no claim is made on Government account against the Government servant within such a period, it shall be presumed that no Government claim excluding claim of house rent and water charges is outstanding against him. (b) The Government dues as assessed shall be adjusted against the cash deposit or the amount withheld from the gratuity and the balance, if any, shall be released to the retired Government servant after the expiry of the period referred to in clause (a). (c) Where a pensioner has furnished a surety, the surety shall be released after the expiry of the period referred to in clause (a), provided that dues assessed up to that time have been recovered. (4) The Government dues which remain unrealised within the period referred to in clause (a) of sub-rule (3) and such other dues, the claim for which is received after that period, shall be recoverable from the retired Government servant through legal procedure : Provided that in respect of house rent and water charges, the amount, if any, the claim for which is received after the period of 12 months from the date of retirement of the Government servant shall not be recoverable from the retired Government servant.” 15. A careful perusal of the above-quoted provisions would show that recoverable Government dues shall be adjusted within a period of six months from the date of retirement and if no claim is made within that period, it shall be presumed that no Government claim is outstanding against him excluding water charges and house rent, and the amount of water charges and house rent shall be recovered within a period of one year from the date of retirement and thereafter, for such recovery, legal procedure has to be adopted. As such, Rules 65 and 66 of the Rules of 1976 do not empower the State and its authorities to make any recovery of Government dues from pension/gratuity after expiry of six months/one year as per Rules 65 and 66 of the Rules of 1976. 16. As such, the provisions contained in Rules 65 and 66 of the Rules of 1976 would show that they provide for recovery of Government dues and do not empower the State or its functionaries to make any adjustment of Government dues from pension/gratuity after expiry of 6 months as per sub-rule (3)(a) of Rule 66 of the Rules of 1976 and water charges & house rent after a period of one year as provided in the proviso to Rule 66(4) of the Rules of 1976. 17. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Ramnarayan Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others passed in Writ Appeal No.357 of 2016 decided on 06.03.2017 , while considering Rules 65 and 66 of the Rules of 1976 has held that after expiry of 6 months (for recoverable dues) or 12 months (for water charges and house rent) from the date of retirement, the only mode available for recovering ascertainable and unascertainable Government dues is by taking recourse to legal procedure which means filing the suit for recovery in the court of competent civil jurisdiction, and observed as under in paragraphs 8.9, 8.12 & 8.13: - “8.9 Rule 66 circumscribes the generic power under Rule 65. The said Rule provides that if any Govt. dues (other than those referred in Rule 65) remained unrealised and unassessed, surety may be taken from the retiring Government servant and the amount of pension and gratuity should be released without any delay. Rule further provides that in case of inability expressed by retired Government servant to furnish the surety, suitable cash deposit may be taken from him or a portion of gratuity which is sufficient to meet out the standing dues should be withheld. Rule further provides that where the dues are unascertainable then withholding of gratuity should be limited to 10%. 8.12 Scheme of Rule 66 can be bifurcated in two parts. The first part pertains to recovery of ascertainable dues and the second of unascertainable dues. Rule further provides that where the dues are unascertainable then withholding of gratuity should be limited to 10%. 8.12 Scheme of Rule 66 can be bifurcated in two parts. The first part pertains to recovery of ascertainable dues and the second of unascertainable dues. In case of ascertainable dues the mode of taking cash deposit or surety or recovery from gratuity at the time of retirement is permissible. However, in case of unascertainable except dues relating to house rent and water charge, period of six months from the date of retirement is provided for the Government to assess and calculate the exact amount of dues. For adopting the same procedure of adjustment against the cash deposit or partly withheld gratuity within the period of six months. Whereas in case of unascertainable dues pertaining to house rent and water charges long period of 12 months is prescribed for completing the process of assessment and calculation. 8.13 After the period of 6 months / 12 months from the date of retirement the only mode available for recovering ascertainable and unascertainable Govt. dues is by taking recourse to legal procedure which means filing the suit for recovery in the court of competent civil jurisdiction.” 18. In light of the aforesaid discussions, if the facts of the present case are examined, it is quite vivid that in the present case, the petitioner had already retired from service on 30.06.2020, whereas notice has been first time issued on 15.01.2021 to the petitioner directing her for adjustment of the advance amount of Rs.3,60,000/- for conducting the 5 Vision Sanskar Training, which was replied by the petitioner on 26.07.2021, but without considering her reply, the impugned order dated 17.03.2023 (Annexure P/1) has been issued to adjust the amount of Rs.3,60,000/- from gratuity and the same has been recovered from gratuity, which is very much beyond the prescribed period i.e. six months from the date of retirement and which had already expired on 31.12.2020. As such, the amount in question cannot be directed to be recovered vide order dated 17.03.2023 without following the prescribed procedure of approaching the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Accordingly, the action of the respondents in making recovery for adjustment from gratuity amount directing recovery of Rs.3,60,000/- is declared illegal. 19. As such, the amount in question cannot be directed to be recovered vide order dated 17.03.2023 without following the prescribed procedure of approaching the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Accordingly, the action of the respondents in making recovery for adjustment from gratuity amount directing recovery of Rs.3,60,000/- is declared illegal. 19. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that since the recovery notice was not issued within the stipulated time of six months and further consiering the fact that the State was failed to produce any material on record to show that the amount in question has been interested to the petitioner and it was the petitioner who was responsible to give details of expenses and got the said amount adjusted, as such, without having any hesitation, I hold that the impugned order of recovery is per se illegal and the same is liable to be quashed. 20. In view of the above, order impugned dated 17.03.2023 (Annexure P/1) is hereby set aside and the respondents are directed to pay the amount of gratuity and all other retiral dues to the petitioner, if outstanding, within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, the respondents are at liberty to take the recourse of lawful mode to recover the amount, if any, as shown in Annexure P/1. 21. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. No order as to cost(s).