1 2025:CGHC:13559 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1630 of 2022 1 - Hiramani Verma S/o Babulal Verma Aged About 64 Years Retired Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Middle School Tolipali Block Malkharoda Education District Sakti, Presently R/o Village- Bokrel Post - Sapiya District - Janjgir Chamap Chhattisgarh. Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar New Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The District Education Officer, Education District - Sakti, District Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Block Education Officer Block -Malkharoda, Education District Sakti District - Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Joint Director, Accounts Treasury And Pension, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashwini Shukla, Advocate For State : Mr. Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, GA (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 21/03/2025 1. By the present petition, the petitioner who is a retired employee of the State Govt., seeking a direction towards the respondents’ authorities to refund the recovery amount of Rs. 18,618/- which has been deposited by the petitioner in pursuant to the order dated 23/11/2020. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the recovery from a retired employee is not permissible in view of the law laid down by the RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.03.21 17:35:38 +0530 2 Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others1. 3. Counsel for the State submits that due to wrong fixation of salary, the petitioner has got the excess payment, therefore, the recovery order passed by the authority is proper and the excess amount which has been paid to the petitioner has to be recovered. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings as well as the documents annexed with the petition. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra) has issued guidelines which reads as under :- “10. 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. (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. 1 (29\015) 4 SCC 334 3 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. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was retired from the post of Upper Division Teacher and the recovery of the amount as stated above has been made by the respondent authorities on the ground that excess payment has wrongly been made to the petitioner. 7. The principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra) is that the recovery from the Class-III employee is not permissible stating excess payment of salary. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has not made any fraud to receive the excess salary. 8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court, the impugned recovery proceedings taken against the petitioner are hereby quashed and the respondent authorities are directed to return the said amount to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 9. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Sd/- Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Rahul