1 2025:CGHC:38197 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2429 of 2023 Rajendra Beck S/o. Late Shri Cyril Beck, Aged About 62 Years R/o. Nawapara, Fundurdihari, Post Fundurdihari Tehsil Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Divisional Joint Director, Treasury (Audit And Pension), Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh 3 - District Treasury Officer, Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh 4 - District Education Officer, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh 5 - Principal, Government High School, Maheshpur, Block Batauli, P.O. Batauli, District Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ashish Beck, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Abhishek Singh, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 01.08.2025 1 Heard Mr. Ashish Beck, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Abhishek Singh, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondents. 2 The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):- YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.08.04 18:58:33 +0530 2 “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass order/direction against the concerned respondents quashing the recovery order dated 31-01-2023 (ANNEXURE-P/1) whereby the amount of Rs. 91,051/-(Rupees Ninety One Thousand and Fifty One Only) has been recovered from the petitioner; 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass order/direction against the concerned respondents to disburse and pay back the recovered amount of Rs. 91,051/- (Rupees Ninety One Thousand and Fifty One Only) to the petitioner. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any other order/direction granting any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner worked in the employment of Department of School Education on the post of Assistant Grade-II, from Government High School, Maheshpur, Block- Batauli, District Surguja. He was initially appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) and later was promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-II. On 16.12.2022 the respondent No. 5 i.e. the Principal of Government High School, Maheshpur issued the retirement order of the petitioner with 31.01.2023 as the date of retirement. Before the date of retirement 3 the petitioner was informed by the respondent No. 2 that amount of Rs. 91,051/- (Rupees Ninety One Thousand and Fifty One Only) was paid in excess to the petitioner during the service of petitioner. The petitioner was informed that for fixation and payment of post-retirement benefits like pension, gratuity, provident fund etc., the petitioner has to give a consent letter in affidavit agreeing to the deduction of the amount of Rs. 91,051/-. It has been submitted that the recovery order has been issued on the ground that the petitioner had given an undertaking for the recovery of the alleged excess amount paid to him. He contended that the petitioner is holding Class-III post and according to the decision in case of State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih(White Washer) and others, (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, (2016) 14 SCC 267. He also places reliance upon the decision rendered 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 submits that recovery made by respondents from the petitioner is erroneous and not permissible and hence, the order dated 31.01.2023 (Annexure P/1) insofar as it relates to the petitioner may be set aside and direction be issued 4 to respondent authority to return back the amount recovered from the petitioner. 4 On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that 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. 5 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed with this writ petition. 6 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) held as under:- “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 herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, 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. 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.” 7 The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case of Labha Ram (Supra) observed as under: "9. In the case at hand, the Revision of Pay Rules, 2009 and 2017 do not make any enabling provision reserving option for the employer to seek refund of the amount paid in excess, by making the employee to furnish an undertaking. Even if we conclude, for the sake of arguments, that even in the absence of enabling provision under the Rules, undertaking given by the employee would operate, the fact remains that against the classes of employees against whom recovery would be impermissible in law, as 6 held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (Supra), recovery from the employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service) would still be impermissible in law. Meaning thereby that even when undertaking is submitted by the employee, but he otherwise belongs to Class-III and Class-IV service, and the amount has been paid more than 5 years back, the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (Supra) would still hold the field in favour of such employees, because the judgment in the matter of Rafiq Masih (Supra) has not been overruled, but only clarified, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its later judgment in the matter of Jagdev Singh, Supra. x x x 11.In view of the above and on finding that in the cases at hand, the recovery of the excess payment has been made more than 12 years ago; the writ petitioners belong to Class-III cadre in the services of the State Government, and small amount has been paid to them in a long span of time, which has now accumulated and the recovery of substantial amount is to be made against them, we are inclined to hold that the Writ Appeals have no substance. They deserve to be and are hereby dismissed." 7 8 In light of the above authoritative judgments, facts of the present case are to be examined. The alleged excess payment was not made by any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner. In the considered opinion of this Court, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra). Therefore, the impugned order dated 31.01.2023 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondent authorities for recovery of the excess payment are set aside and the amount which has been recovered, if any, as excess payment, shall be refunded to the petitioner within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, it will carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of this Writ Petition. 9 Respondents are further directed to release the retiral dues of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 10 Accordingly, this petition is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions Certified Copy as per rules. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh