1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4773 of 2018 Dr. N.S.Patel S/o S/o Late H. S. Patel, aged About 65 years R/o 3 Adarsh Nagar, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of Veterinary Services, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Director, Department of Veterinary Services, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Deputy Director, Department of Veterinary Services, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 4. Director, Treasury Account and Pension, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5. Joint Director, Treasury Account and Pension, Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate For Respondents : Shri R.K. Gupta, Additional AG (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Order on Board dated 02/01/2026 Challenge in this Writ Petition is to the order dated 23.04.2018 (Annexure P- 1) by which the petitioner who retired in May 2018 on attaining the age of superannuation as Assistant Veterinary Surgeon, was made to pay an amount of Rs. 2,80,348/- towards excess payment made to him. 2 2. Facts in short: In the year 2006 the respondents vide order dated 23.04.2018 directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 2,80,348/- for wrong fixation of salary for the period 2006 to 2018. It is this recovery order which is under challenge in this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as Assistant Veterinary Surgeon with the respondents who retired on 31.05.2018 on attaining the age of superannuation. He submits that by order dated 23.04.2018 (Annexure P-1) passed just a month prior to the retirement, the respondents directed the petitioner to deposit the aforesaid amount. He submits that the petitioner was forced to deposit the aforesaid amount otherwise other retiral dues would not have been paid to him. In support of his submissions, reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih reported in (2015) AIR SCW 501 and also on the decision of this Court in the matter of Gopal Prasad Naik v.State of Chhattisgarh and another rendered in WPS No. 1356 of 2023 on 22.08.2025. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/State supports the aforesaid impugned recovery order and submits that the petitioner had given an undertaking that in case any excess payment was made to him during his service tenure, the same can could be recovered from his retiral dues. He submits that the impugned order was passed prior to retirement of the petitioner and therefore it cannot be said the recovery was made after his retirement. He further submits that as the petitioner was a class II officer, the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (supra) would not be applicable in this case. Being all this, it is submitted by learned State counsel that the petition being devoid of any substance is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 6. From the documents on record it is evident that the petitioner retired from service on 31.05.2018 and about a month prior thereto the impugned recovery order was passed. The issue with regard to recovery of excess payment came for 3 consideration before the Supreme in the matter of State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (supra) where it has postulated certain circumstances in which the recovery cannot be made. The circumstances so postulated are being reproduced as under for ready reference:- “18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D Service). (ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from the 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 iniquitious or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer’s right to recover.” The aforesaid legal position has subsequently been followed by the Supreme Court in the matter of Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala and others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 536 and in the matter of Jogeshwar Sahoo and others v. District Judge, Cuttack and others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 724. Relying on the aforesaid judicial pronouncements of the Supreme Court, this Court in the matter of Gopal Prasad Naik (supra) has also quashed the recovery order of Principal of a Government Polytechnic College during service tenure. That apart, the said recovery of excess payment made on account of erroneous pay fixation 4 pertains to the period 2006 to 2018 which appears to be for more than five years prior to impugned order being passed. 7. Thus in view of the aforesaid factual and legal position, this Court is of the considered opinion that the recovery order (Annexure P-1) impugned in this petition cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. It is thus set aside. Any excess amount recovered if any, shall be refunded to the petitioner within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 8. Petition is accordingly allowed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Jyotishi AVANISH JYOTISHI Digitally signed by AVANISH JYOTISHI Date: 2026.01.05 14:33:03 +0530