1 / 4 2025:CGHC:20049 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2677 of 2025 1 Manohar Lal Tiwari S/o Late Shri Pitambar Prasad Tiwari Aged About 64 Years R/o Lig- 140, Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla Nagar Korba District - Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of School Education Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Mantralaya New Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 Divisional Joint Director Treasury Account And Pension Department Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 Joint Director Education Division Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 District Education Officer Korba District - Korba Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Shrivastava and V.K. Sharma Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. K.S. Saini, P.L. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.05.03 12:54:04 +0530 2 / 4 Order on Board 01/05/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking quashment of recovery order to the tune of Rs. 1,97,147/- issued by respondent No. 4 i.e. Block Education Officer, Korba. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has retired from his service from the post of Head Master from Govt. Middle School Darrabhatha District Korba on 31.03.2023. He further submits that vide Annexure P-1 respondent No. 4 issued a recovery order for an amount of Rs. 1,97,147/- against the petitioner stating that excess payment has been paid to the petitioner. He further submits that recovery against retired employee is not allowed as stated in case of State of Punjab and others V. Rfiq Masih (White Washer) and others, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334. 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 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 Annexure P-1 be set aside. 3. Learned State counsel opposes the submission made and submits that the order of recovery is just and proper and need no 3 / 4 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. (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 4 / 4 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 retired employee, recovery of the amount from petitioner is not permissible as observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rafiq Masih(supra). 7. Considering the decision of the Hon’ble supreme Court as also the Division Bench of this Court, particularly considering the fact that the petitioner is a retired employee the impugned order of recovery 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