1 2025:CGHC:44981 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3240 of 2023 1 - Keerit Ram Sinha S/o Late Shri Naval Sinha Aged About 54 Years R/o Ramadhin Marg, Ward No. 26, Behind City Kotwali Thana Rajnandgaon, Police Station City Kotwali Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home/police, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Police Station And Post- Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director General Of Police (D G P) Police Headquarter (P H Q) Sector-19, 1st Floor, Atal Nagar, Police Station And Post- Rakhi, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Inspector General Of Police (I G P) Crime Investigation Department (C I D) Police Headquarter (P H Q) Sector-19 1st Floor, Atal Nagar Police Station And Post Rakhi Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Upper Director (Finance) O/o Upper Director (Finance), Police Headquarter (P H Q) Sector-19, 1st Floor, Atal Nagar, Police Station And Post- Rakhi, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 5 - Superintendent Of Police (S P) O/o Superintendent Of Police Crime Investigation Department (C I D), Police Headquarter (P H Q) Sector- 19, 1st Floor, Atal Nagar, Police Station And Post- Rakhi Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 03/09/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “(I) That, thus Hon ble Court may kindly direct the respondent authorites to produce all the relevant records relating to case the petitioner before this Hon'ble Court for its kind perusal. (ii) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/quash the impugned onder dated 09.05.2022 issued by Respondent No. 5 SP, CID Raipur for amendment in pay fixation of petitioner (Annexure P/1) (iii) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/quash the impugned recovery order dated 25.07 2022 issued by Respondent No. 5 SP, CID. Raipur and also 3 set-aside/quash the impugned recovery chart against the petitioner (Annexure P/2) (iv) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to refund the deducted amount to the petitioner with interest of 10% if any amount deducted in lieu of said recovery order dated 25.07.2022. That this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to direct respondents to give suitable compensation to the petitioner for the mental trauma and agony. harassment and hardships suffered by him as also cost of the litigation.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the the petitioner was initially appointed in the year 1992 on the post of Constable (GD) and was subsequently promoted to the post of Head Constable in the year 2000, thereafter to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector in the year 2008, further promoted as Sub- Inspector in the year 2009, and finally promoted as Inspector in the year 2021. He further submits that during his service tenure, vide order dated 09.05.2022, respondent No. 5, Superintendent of Police, Crime Investigation Department, Raipur, amended the pay fixation of the petitioner on the ground that the earlier fixation was erroneously made, which is under challenge in the present petition. He further submit that, subsequently, after a lapse of about one and a half months, respondent No. 5 again issued an 4 order dated 25.07.2022 directing recovery of an amount of Rs. 4,62,066/- from the petitioner, along with a recovery chart and are also impugned in the writ petition. He further submits that, the petitioner further relies upon his Aadhaar Card, which reflects his date of birth as 15.05.1969, thereby establishing that the petitioner is presently 54 years of age. He contended that the issue with regard to recovery of the excess payment made to the employees in particular, the Class III and Class IV employees has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Ors. (2015) 4 SCC 334 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the recovery of excess payment made to the Class III and Class IV employee to be impermissible. He also contended that following the decision in the case of Rafiq Masih (Supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Thomas Daniel Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. (2022 SCC OnLine SC 536) has also allowed the Appeal filed by the appellant therein. He further submits that no recovery has been made from the petitioner. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents/State submits that since wrong fixation has been mentioned in the service book as such it is required to be recovered from the petitioner as excessive amount has been paid which is apparent from the fixation of pay scale itself. 5 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (Supra) has observed thus:- “18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, 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. 6 (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.” 6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (2009) 3 SCC 475 considering the issued with regard to recovery of excess payment made to the petitioner therein has held as under : “57. This Court, in a catena of decisions, has granted relief against recovery of excess payment of emoluments/allowances if (A) the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, and (b) if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous. 59. Undoubtedly, the excess amount that has been paid to the appellants - teachers was not because of any misrepresentation or fraud on their part and the appellants also had no knowledge that the amount that was being paid to them was more than what they were entitled to. It would not be out of place to 7 mention here that the Finance Department had, in its counter affidavit, admitted that it was a bona fide mistake on their part. The excess payment made was the result of wrong interpretation of the rule that was applicable to them, for which the appellants cannot be held responsible. Rather, the whole confusion was because of inaction, negligence and carelessness of the officials concerned of the Government of Bihar. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-teachers submitted that majority of the beneficiaries have either retired or are on the verge of it. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case at hand and to avoid any hardship to the appellants-teachers, we are of the view that no recovery of the amount that has been paid in excess to the appellants-teachers should be made.” 7. In a recent judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jogeswar Sahoo & Ors vs. The District Judge, Cuttack & Ors reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 724 has reiterated and confirmed the dictum laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra) and Thomas Daniel (supra) holding that recovery cannot be made from the employee in case no fraud or misrepresentation was made by the employee. 8 8. In light of the above authoritative judgments, facts of the present case are to be examined. The alleged excess payment was not made by any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner. In the considered opinion of this Court, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra), Thomas Daniel (supra) and Jogeswar Sahoo (supra). Therefore, the impugned order dated 9.5.2022 (Annexure P/1) is hereby set aside. 9. With the aforementioned observation, writ petition is allowed. 10. If any amount is recovered pursuant to the impugned recovery order, the same shall be refunded to the petitioner within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, it shall carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat