1 2025:CGHC:4957 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3817 of 2018 Gangadhar Patel S/o Late Govind Ram Patel Aged About 42 Years R/o Village And Post- Naharparli, Police Station Bhagdevpur, District- Raigarh Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Department Of Public Works Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Engineer In Chief Public Works Department Sirpur Bhawan, Sihawa Road, Civil Lines, District- Raipur Chhattsgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Superintending Engineer Public Works Department Bilaspur Circle, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4. Sub Divisional Officer Public Works Department Nh Sub Division, Raigarh, District- Raigarh Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Lav Sharma, Advocate For State/ Respondents : Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 28/01/2025 1) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Regular Unskilled Labourer on a compassionate basis under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Work- charged and Contingency Paid Employees Rules, 1977 vide order dated 30.03.1998. He further submits that the department never raised any objection with regard to salary etc. which was being paid to the AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.01.29 13:20:56 +0530 2 petitioner. He contends that on 10.04.2018, the pay-scale of the petitioner was revised and vide order dated 02.05.2018, respondent No. 3 issued an order of recovery to the tune of Rs. 16,60,998/- on the ground that due to a mistake, the petitioner was paid a higher pay- scale from 03.04.1998 till February, 2018. He further contends that the authority concerned has bifurcated the above-mentioned amount under two heads, which are Rs. 15,31,316/- (amount paid to the petitioner from April, 1998 till June, 2017) and Rs. 1,29,672/- (amount paid to the petitioner between July, 2017 till February, 2018). He argues that the petitioner is a Class-IV employee and the order of recovery has been issued after a long 20 years and there was no misrepresentation on his part, therefore, the order of recovery is liable to be quashed. 2) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that after the revision of pay, the petitioner was paid a higher pay-scale, therefore, a separate amount has been assessed under that head pertaining to the period between July, 2017 and February, 2018 to the tune of Rs. 1,29,672/-. He further submits that with regard to excess payment made from the date of appointment till June, 2017, a separate amount has been assessed by respondent No. 3. He contends that the petitioner filed a writ petition claiming therein revision of his pay and pursuant to the order passed by this Court in WPS No. 1384/2017, the pay of the petitioner was revised, thus, respondent No. 3 has passed a reasonable order and this petition deserves to be dismissed. 3) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents / material available on record. 4) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih(White Washer) and others, (2015) 4 SCC 334 3 observed that:- 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 bound by the undertaking. 5) A perusal of the order dated 02.05.2018 (Annexure P/1) would show that the petitioner was appointed on 03.04.1998 as a Regular Unskilled Labourer under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Work-charged and Contingency Paid Employees Rules, 1977. In the year 2018, his salary was revised; the order of recovery was issued by respondent No. 3 on 02.05.2018 inter-alia on the ground that excess payment was made to 4 the petitioner from his date of joining till February, 2018. A perusal of the documents placed on record would reveal that there is no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner. For the revision of pay- scale, he preferred a writ petition and thereafter an order was passed and if any excess payment was made to the petitioner pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the same was deducted within one year, therefore, the order of recovery of Rs. 1,29,672/- appears to be reasonable. Admittedly, the petitioner is a Class-IV employee who was appointed on 03.04.1998 and the order of recovery has been issued 02.05.2018 after a long 20 years and it would be iniquitous for the petitioner to refund the amount already received by him 20 years ago. 6) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra), the order of recovery pertaining to Rs. 15,31,316/- is hereby quashed. The amount, if any recovered shall be refunded forthwith. 7) The petitioner would be at liberty to refund Rs. 1,29,672/- in installments. The petitioner would also be at liberty to make a representation for the recovery of the said part before respondent No. 3, who in turn, is directed to take appropriate steps on such representation being moved for recovery of Rs. 1,29,672/- in installments. 8) Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Ajinkya