1 / 5 2025:CGHC:13796 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1557 of 2025 1 Rajendra Kumar Kshatriya S/o Late Shri A.B. Kshatriya Aged About 58 Years R/o Second Battalion Road, Sakri, Village - Sambalpuri, Near - Narayani Homes, Post - Sakri, Tahsil - Takhatpur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home/police, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, Police Station And Post - Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 Inspector General Of Police (Igp) Office Of Inspector General Of Police, Chhattisgarh Armed Force (Caf), Police Headquarter (Phq), Sector-19, Police Station And Post - Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 Divisional Joint Director O/o. Divisional Joint Director, Treasury - Accounts And Pension, Bilaspur Division, Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 Commandant Office Of Commandant, 2nd Battalion, Chhattisgarh Armed Force (Caf), Sakri, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.03.22 16:49:14 +0530 2 / 5 For Petitioner : Shri Abhishek Pandey, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. G.A. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 22/03/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking quashment of recovery order dated 27.01.2025 issued by respondent No. 4 i.e. Commandant, Office of Commandant 2nd Battalion, C.G. Armed Force, Sakri, Bilaspur C.G. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working on the post of Constable (Trade) in the office of respondent No. 4/ Commandant 2nd Battalion, Sakri. He further submits that vide order dated 27.01.2025 (Annexure P-1) respondent No. 4 issued a recovery order for an amount of Rs. 5,13,875/- against the petitioner stating that excess payment has been paid to the petitioner due to erroneous pay fixation. He further submits that the petitioner is holding Class-III post and according to the decision in case of State of Punjab and others V. Rfiq Masih (White Washer) and others, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, recovery of the payment made mistakenly to Class -III employees is not permissible. He also contended that the similar view has been taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others v. Jagdev Singh 3 / 5 reported in (2016) 14 SCC 267 and by the Division Bench of this Court in case of State of Chhattisgarh v. Labha Ram Dhruv in Writ Appeal No.264 of 2020 and also in case of State of Chhattisgarh and others v. Roshan Lal Baghel in Writ Appeal No.265 of 2020. He further submits that recovery made by the respondents from the petitioner is erroneous and not permissible and prays that the order of recovery dated 27.01.2025 be set aside and direction be issued to respondents to return back the amount recovered from the petitioner. 3. Learned State counsel opposes the submission made and submits that the order of recovery is just and proper and need no interference. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the documents annexed. 5. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rafiq Masih(supra) has observed thus: “10. In State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (Supra) this Court held that while it is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship where payments have mistakenly been made by an employer, in the following situations, a recovery by the employer would be impermissible in law: (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. 4 / 5 (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. 11. The principle enunciated in Proposition (ii) above cannot apply to a situation such as in the present case. In the present case, the officer to whom the payment was made in the first instance was clearly placed on notice that any payment found to have been made in excess would be required to be refunded. The officer furnished an undertaking while opting for the revised pay scale. He is bound by the undertaking.” 6. In the aforementioned facts of the case, where undisputedly petitioner is holding Class-III post, recovery of the amount from petitioner is not permissible as observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rafiq Masih(supra). 5 / 5 7. Considering the decision of the Hon’ble supreme Court as also the Division Bench of this Court, impugned order of recovery dated 27.01.2025 (Annexure P-1) is quashed. Respondents are directed to return back the amount, if any, recovered from the petitioner within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of the order. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the above extent. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Jyoti