1 2025:CGHC:33507 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 124 of 2023 1 - Anjani Singh S/o Parsuram Singh Aged About 59 Years Presently Working As Platoon Commander In The 17th Battalion, Chhattisgarh Armed Force, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Home Department (Police), Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 2 - The Director General Of Police Police Head Quarter, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 3 - The Additional Director General Of Police Chhattisgarh Armed Force, Police Head Quarter, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 4 - The Inspector General Of Police Chhattisgarh Armed Force, Police Head Quarter, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 5 - The Commandant 17th Special (I/r) Battalion, Chhattisgarh Armed Force, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aman Upadhyay, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/ State : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 16/07/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in nature of mandamus where to set aside/quash the impugned order dated 01.12.2022 issued by the Respondent No. 5. 10.3 That, any other relief or reliefs may also be granted to the petitioner which this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The petitioner in the writ petition challenging the legality, validity and the correctness of the order dated 01.12.2022 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No. 5 whereby the excess 3 amount paid from August, 2002 to November, 2019 to the petitioner has been directed to be recovered amounting to Rs. 1,00,868/-. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as Constable (G.D.) on 24.10.1985 under the 12th Battalion, Darri, District Korba. In 1992, the 12th Battalion was shifted from Darri, District Korba to Sakari, District Bilaspur. After the formation of the State of Chhattisgarh, the 12th Battalion at Sakari was renamed as the 2nd Battalion, Sakari, District Bilaspur. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Head Constable (G.D.) in 2002 and posted in the 2nd Battalion, Sakari, Bilaspur (C.G.). Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Platoon Commander in 2012 and continued in the 2nd Battalion, Sakari. Subsequently, in 2021, he was promoted to the post of Platoon Commander and transferred from the 2nd Battalion, Sakari, District Bilaspur to the 17th Battalion, Kabirdham, where he is presently serving as Platoon Commander. The petitioner has now received the impugned order whereby the Respondent Commandant has directed recovery of Rs. 1,00,868/- from his salary on account of alleged excess payment and without giving any opportunity of hearing and without any notice to the petitioner, the impugned order has been issued, which would further to no the violation of principle of 4 natural justice. He submit that fraud misrepresentation has been played by petitioners and if the benefits have wrongly been granted them, the same cannot be recovered and their case is covered by the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334. He would next submit that the similar issue has been considered and decided by this Court on 04.01.2016 in WPS No.4290/2013 in between Ram Krishna Sahu vs State of Chhattisgarh and others and other connected mattes. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel, would support the impugned order. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, submissions made considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspection. 6. The recovery of excess amount already paid tο the petitioner has been directed against them, but the fact remains that while passing the order (Annexure-P/1), no opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the petitioner which is in violation of principle of natural justice. Even otherwise, there in no allegation against the petitioner that he has played any misrepresentation. 7. This Court in paras 7 to 10 of WPS No.4290/2013 has held as under:- 5 "7. In Rafiq Masih's case (supra), Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have considered the entire issue in great detail and it has been held specifically that where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer. certain recoveries have been held to their entitlement. be impermissible in law. Para 18 of the report states as under:- "18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery. payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready following reference, summarise few situations. the wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from employees the belonging to Class III and Class IV service service) (or Group C and Group D Service) (ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from the employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five 6 years, before the order of recovery 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 arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover." 8. In the above-stated judgment, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that recovery from the employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV services is impermissible in law where the payment has been made mistakenly by the employer entitlement. 9. The fact remains in the present cases that earlier petitioners filed writ petition which was allowed in terms of order in the matter of Ram Kumar Sahu (supra). Thereafter, State Government granted benefit of regular pay scale to the petitioners and it is not the case that the petitioners have fraud or made any played any misrepresentation in order payment of to higher pay 7 scale. are petitioners and their case get The Class-III employees is covered by the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra). 10. In view of above, the writ petitions are allowed and the order dated 18/09/2013 (Annexure P/2) relating to the present petitioners shall stand quashed. No order as to cost(s)." 8. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 01.12.2022 (Annexure P/1) in the writ petition, so far as it relates to the present petitioner, is hereby quashed. No order as to cost (s). Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat