1 / 4 2025:CGHC:18773 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2805 of 2025 1 - Smt. Pushpa Sharma W/o Late Rajendra Kumar Sharma Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Pamgarh Ward No. 17 Tahsil Pamgarh Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Under Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Joint Director Directorate Health Care, Indravati Bhawan New Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Collector Janjgir-Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 4 - Divisional Joint Director Health Care Bilaspur Division Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Janjgir-Champa Distt. Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 6 - Block Medical Officer CHC Nawagarh Distt. Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) 7 - Joint Director Treasury Account And Pension Bilaspur Division Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Sabyasachi Choubey, Panel Lawyer (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.04.28 18:22:44 +0530 2 / 4 25/04/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner, whose husband Late Rajendra Kumar Sharma was working as N.M.A. at Sector Sivni, Community Health Centre Nawagarh, died on 08/05/2021, preferred the writ petition questioning the recovery letter dated 10/05/2023 and 22/05/2024 stating that excess payment was made to the husband of the petitioner, when he was in service. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s husband was working as NMA, Sector Sivni, Community Health Centre Nawagarh, and died on 08/05/2021 and after the death of the deceased employee, the impugned recovery order has been issued. He submits that the recovery letter which has been issued by the respondent authorities is contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab V/s Rafiq Masih & Ors. reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that when the excess payment was come to the knowledge of the respondent authorities, the recovery order has been passed and there is no illegality in issuance of the recovery letter. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents and the pleadings made by the petitioner as well as the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra). 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra) 3 / 4 has issued guidelines 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. 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 4 / 4 bound by the undertaking.” 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s husband was holding Class- III post and the recovery letter as stated above has been issued by the respondent authorities on the ground that excess payment has wrongly been made to the husband of the petitioner, who died on 08/05/2021. 7. The principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra) is that the recovery from the Class- III employee is not permissible stating excess payment of salary. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has not made any fraud to receive the excess salary. The same view has also been reiterated by the Supreme Court recently in the matter of Jogeshwar Sahoo & Ors. v. The District Judge, Cuttack & Others (decided in SLP (C) No. 5918/2024 on 04/04/2025). 8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, considering that the impugned order of recovery has been issued to the petitioner after the death of deceased employee and particularly considering the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court, the impugned recovery proceedings taken against the petitioner, by the respondent authorities is hereby quashed. 9. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. SD/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Amardeep