1 2025:CGHC:36152 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3559 of 2021 1 - Jagdish Taram S/o Manglu Ram Aged About 56 Years Working As Head Master, Government Middle School Sorar, 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., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - District Education Officer District Balod , Chhattisgarh. 4 - Block Education Officer Gurur District District Balod , Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate. For State/Respondents : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 25.07.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “10.1 That, petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble SMT NIRMALA RAO 2 Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/quash the impugned recovery order dated 14.06.2021 (ANNEXURE P/1). 10.2 That, petitioner most respectfully prays 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. 10.3 Any other relief or reliefs that may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may be also kindly be granted.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, at the relevant time, the petitioner was a Class-II employee holding the post of Head Master, Govt. Middle School, Sorar, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. He would contend that on 14.6.2021, respondent No.4 issued an order for the recovery of Rs.1,06,687/-, on the ground that the salary of the petitioner was wrongly fixed in January, 2008 and this mistake continued till July, 2016. He would submit that, based on this premise, respondent No.4 passed the order of recovery. He has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), reported in 2015 AIR SCW 501 and Jogeswar Sahoo and Ors. vs. The District Judge, Cuttack and Ors., arising out of SP(C) No. 5918 of 2024. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that due to mistake the pay of the petitioner was wrongly fixed at higher side and when this fact was detected, a prompt decision was taken for recovery. He would submit that respondent No.4 has passed an order of recovery taking into consideration all aspects of the case. He would also submit that an undertaking was also given by the petitioner. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents available on record. 5. Taking into consideration the fact that the pay of the petitioner was wrongly fixed by the department itself in January, 2008 and continued till July, 2016; that the petitioner is a Class-III government servant, that there was no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner; and that the Chhattisgarh Revision of Pay Rules, 2009 & 2017 contain no provision with regard to undertaking, any such undertaking rendered by the petitioner would not be binding. Therefore, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (supra) will apply in toto. 6. In the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in para-18 as under:- “18. 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.” 4 7. Considering the facts of the present case and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the order (Annexure-P/1) issued by the respondent authorities is hereby quashed. If any amount has been recovered from the petitioner, same shall be refunded forthwith. 8. With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi