1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3505 of 2021 1 - Anil Kumar Sahu S/o Komal Singh Sahu Aged About 56 Years Working As Upper Division Teacher, Government Middle School Chedia, District Balod Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education Mantralaya , Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar , Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Principal Secretary Department Of Finance Mahanadi Bhavan , Atal Nagar District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - District Education Officer District Balod, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Block Education Officer Gurur District District Balod Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Barun Kumar Chakrabarty, Advocate For State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. G.A Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 29-08-2025 1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:- 10.1 That, petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/ quash the impugned recovery order dated 14.06.2021 (Annexure P/1). 10.2That, petitioner most respectfully prays Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.08.30 10:28:27 +0530 2 that this Hon’ble Court may kindly order writ of appropriate nature directing the respondents to continue the salary as per increased pay grade, prohibiting recovery. 10.3Any other relief or reliefs that may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be kindly be granted. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits petitioner is holding the post of Upper Division Teacher under respondent-department. He further submits that on 14.06.2021, order of recovery was issued against petitioner on the ground that petitioner has been paid excess amount from 01.01.2008 to 31.05.2017 to the tune of Rs. 1,85,191/- for which he was not entitled. He contends that petitioner is a class-III employee and after four years, mistake was deducted by the respondent-department and thereafter, order of recovery has been issued. He further contends that issue involved in present case is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others1. 3) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that due to mistake, excess payment has been made to the petitioner and when this mistake came into knowledge of the department, order of recovery was issued. She further submits there is no infirmity in the order impugned and this petition deserves to be dismissed. 4) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 1. (2015) 4 SCC 334 3 5) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra) 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. 6) Admittedly, petitioner is a class-III employee and there was no misrepresentation on the part of petitioner and order of recovery has been issued after four years. 7) Taking into consideration the facts of the present case and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra), 4 order of recovery dated 14.06.2021 is hereby set-aside and it is directed that the recovery, if any, made shall be refunded forthwith. 8) Accordingly, this petition stands allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya