1 2025:CGHC:16797 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3277 of 2023 1 - Krishna Prasad Thakur S/o Late Shri Raghunandan Singh Thakur Aged About 61 Years R/o New Rajendra Nagar, Qtr. No. 272, Raipur, P.S. - New Rajendra Nagar, Tahsil And District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home / Police, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, 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, P.S. 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, P.S. And Post - Rakhi, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 4 - Assistant Director (Finance) O/o. Assistant Director (Finance), Police Headquarter (P H Q), Sector -19, 1st Floor, Atal Nagar, P.S. And Post - Rakhi, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 5 - Superintendent Of Police (S P) O/o. Superintendent Of Police, Crime SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.04.15 20:27:58 +0530 2 Investigation Department (C I D), Police Headquarter (P H Q), Sector - 19, 1st Floor, Atal Nagar, P.S. And Post - Rakhi, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Abhishek Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri Sabyasachi Choubey, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 09.04.2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner who is retired Head Constable seeking quashment of the order of recovery (Annexure P/2) dated 03.08.2022 issued by the respondent no. 5/ Superintendent of Police, CID Raipur. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was a Class-III employee and due to wrong fixation of pay the alleged excess payment has been made to the petitioner from the year 2007 till 0.07.2021. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the pay fixation has been made by the respondent on their own and the petitioner has not in any manner involved with the fixation of pay and being a Class-III employee, the excess payment made due to wrong committed by the respondent cannot be recovered after such a belated stage, even that is after the retirement of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab and others vs.Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 344. 3 3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that it is not in dispute that the petitioner is a Class-III employee, however the judgment in the matter of State of Punjab and others vs.Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, is not completely applied to the case of the petitioner, because the petitioner retired on 13.11.2023 and the recovery order of the excess payment made prior to 5 years can only be not recoverable, however the amount of excess payment which has been made just before 5 years of retirement that can be recovered and hence the order of recovery is just and proper. 4. I have perused the pleadings as well as order of recovery. 5. It appears that excess payment has been made due to wrong fixation of pay from the year 2007 to the year 2021, the petitioner retired on 13.11.2023. Looking to the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra), wherein it has observed 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 4 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.” 6. As the petitioner retired on 13.11.2023 and the recovery order has been issued on 01.07.2022, the recovery order as far as the period beyond 5 years from the date of recovery cannot be sustainable, the recovery for the excess payment paid to the petitioner from 26.08.2007 to 01.07.2016 is quashed, however as far as the recovery for the excess payment made to the petitioner from 01.07.2017 to 01.07.2021, the respondent may recover the same by providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, by giving an opportunity to explain why the amount paid in excess to the petitioner shall not be recovered from the petitioner, hence the writ 5 petition is partly allowed. The impugned order for recovery of excess payment made from 01.07.2008 to 01.07.2016 is quashed. From 01.07.2017 to 01.07.2021, the respondent may recover the same by providing opportunity, the State is at liberty to recover the same, by passing a separate order in accordance with law. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib