1 / 4 2025:CGHC:18109 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2682 of 2025 1 Smt. Manisha Jha W/o Mahesh Kumar Jha Aged About 63 Years R/o Street No. 8/a Zone No. 03 Near Kalyani Mandir New Adarsh Nagar, Durg Tahsil And District - Durg Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Directorate Of Public Instructions, Block 03 First Floor, Indrawati Bhavan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 District Education Officer Civil Lines Durg Chhattisgarh 3 Block Education Officer Civil Lines, District - Durg Chhattisgarh 4 Divisional Joint Director O/o Divisional Joint Director Treasury Accounts And Pension, Durg Division, District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Shri Sandeep Jha, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Shri Saumitra Kesharwani, P.L. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 22/04/2025 JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.04.23 10:27:46 +0530 2 / 4 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking quashment of recovery order dated 26.07.2024 (Annexure P-2) issued by respondent No. 4 i.e. Divisional Joint Director, Durg. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as Assistant Teacher at Rural Primary School for Girls at Belsonda, Mahasamund and superannuated on 31.07.2024. He further submits that vide order dated 26.07.2024 (Annexure P-2) respondent No. 4 issued a recovery order against the petitioner stating that excess payment has been paid to the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner is holding Class-III post and according to the decision in case of State of Punjab and others V. Rfiq Masih (White Washer) and others, reported in (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 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 dated 26.07.2024 be set aside and direction be issued to respondents to return back the amount recovered from the petitioner. 3 / 4 3. Learned State counsel opposes the submission made and submits that the order of recovery is just and proper and need no 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, 4 / 4 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. 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 holding Class-III post, 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, impugned order of recovery dated 26.07.2024 (Annexure P-2) 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