1 (WPS No. 4016 of 2015) 2025:CGHC:13081 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4016 of 2015 1 - Smt. Ajita Beck W/o Late Pankrasiyus Beck, Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Kharwatoli, Post Keradih, Tahsil Kunkuri, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, P.S. Rakhi, Tahsil Aarang, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector (Tribal Branch), Jashpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - District Education Officer, Jashpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Block Education Officer, Bagicha, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) For Petitioner :-Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate For State :-Mr. Amit Buxy, Panel Lawyer SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 19.03.2025 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging order dated 14.07.2015 (Annexure P/1), passed by respondent ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Digitally signed by ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Date: 2025.03.24 10:41:42 +0530 2 (WPS No. 4016 of 2015) No.4, whereby, the petitioner has been directed to deposit the excess payment of Rs.2,62,092/-, in order to finalize the pension case of the petitioner. 2. Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s husband was a Class-IV employee and after his death the impugned order of recovery has been passed, which is in the teeth of decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab & Others v. Rafiq Masih (white washer)1 and, therefore, the impugned order dated 14.07.2015 is liable to be set aside. 3. Learned State counsel would support the impugned order. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the materials available on record with utmost circumspection. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner’s husband- Pankrasiyus Beck while working as a Class-IV employee/Peon in the office of respondent No.4, died in harness on 17.03.2015, and after his death, the impugned order dated 14.07.2015 (Annexure P/1) has been passed holding that he has been paid in excess during the period from 10.07.1999 to 1 2015 (4) SCC 334 3 (WPS No. 4016 of 2015) 31.10.2004 and, therefore, the excess amount of Rs.2,62,092/- is to be recovered from the petitioner in order to finalize her pension case. 6. In this regard, the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra) may be referred herein, wherein their Lordships in Paragraph 18(iii) & 18(v) of the judgment has held as under :- “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 hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law : (i) xxx xxx xxx (ii) xxx xxx xxx (iii) Recovery from the employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. (iv) xxx xxx xxx (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.” 7. Reverting to the facts of the case, a bare perusal of the impugned order of recovery dated 14.07.2015 (Annexure P/1) would show that the petitioner’s husband has been paid the excess amount during the period from 10.07.1999 4 (WPS No. 4016 of 2015) to 31.10.2004, as such, the excess payment has been made for a period of more than five years before the date of order of recovery. More particularly, recovery of the excess payment from the petitioner would be iniquitous and harsh as the petitioner herein has unfortunately lost her husband and, therefore, this case is clearly covered by Paragraph 18(iii) & 18(v) of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra). In that view of the matter, impugned order dated 14.07.2015 (Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein above. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge @d!t!