1 2025:CGHC:44928 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2698 of 2021 * - Suraij Kumar Chandrawanshi S/o Late S.P. Chandrawanshi Aged About 46 Years Working As Head Constable At Police Training School, Rajnandgaon, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Atal Nagar Mahanadi Bhawan, New, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director General Of Police Police Headquarter, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Superintendent Of Police Police Training School, Rajnandgaon, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 4 - Superintendent Of Police Bijapur, District : Bijapur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Somkant Verma, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 03/09/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 10.(i) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned notice dated 15.12.2020 issued by the respondent no. 3. 10.(ii)Any other relief which the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may please also be granted. 2. Mr. Somkant Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that earlier the petitioner was working on the post of Head Constable at Bijapur, District Bijapur and the authority granted naxal Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.09.09 14:34:11 +0530 2 allowances to the petitioner because Bijapur is naxal affected area. He would contend that thereafter his services were transferred from Bijapur to Rajnandgaon and he joined his services at Rajnandgaon. 3. Mr. Somkant Verma would contend that subsequently respondent No. 4 issued a letter to respondent No. 3 regarding recovery of Rs.13,601/- from the petitioner for the period of September 2018 to March 2019. He would further contend that respondent No.3 issued impugned recovery notice to the petitioner on 15.12.2020. He would submit that the respondent No. 1 had issued an order dated 17.07.2009 whereby naxal duty allowances was provided upto 15% and 20% to those employees, who were working in naxalite affected area. He would submit that in compliance of order of respondent No. 1, respondent No. 4 extended benefit of naxal duty allowances to the petitioner from month of September 2018 which continued till March 2019. He would contend that on account of mistake committed by the department, the petitioner was extended naxal duty allowances and there was no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner. He would contend that the department detected the mistake and thereafter order of recovery was issued on 15.12.2020 by respondent No. 3. The details of recovery amount is reproduced herein below:- Sl. No. Name of Employee/)Post Recovery of Naxal Duty Allowances Recovery Amount. 1. Suraij Kumar Chandrawanshi, Head Constable-12, PTS, Rajanandgaon From 09/2018 To 03/2019 13,601/- 4. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents would oppose. He would submit that due to clerical mistake, the petitioner was extended benefit of naxal duty allowance 3 and this mistake was detected by the department and immediately thereafter order of recovery was issued by respondent No. 3 on 15.12.2020. He would contend that it is not a case of wrong fixation of salary/allowances, therefore, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 would not apply. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. In the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para-10 which reads as under:- “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. (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.” 4 7. In the present case, due to mistake committed by the department, the petitioner was being paid naxal duty allowances from the month of September 2018 and it continued till the month of March 2019. It is not a case of respondents that there was any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner and further the petitioner is Class-III employee and order has been passed in the moth of December 2020 after 02 years, therefore, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter Rafiq Masih (supra) would apply in its full force. Accordingly the impugned notice dated 15.12.2020 pertaining to the petitioner is hereby quashed. The recovery made, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioner forthwith. 8. Consequently, the petition is allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti