1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1741 of 2017 1 - Sandal Ram Gupta S/o Shri Palharam, Aged About 63 Years R/o Village Chhote Gumda, Tahsil Ghargoda Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - The District Education Officer, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3 - Principal, Govt. Higher Secondary School Gerwani, Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 4 - Joint Director, Account, Treasury And Pension Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 28.07.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ to set-aside/quash the impugned order dated 23/06/2009 issued by the res. no. 4 & subsequent recovery of Rs. 55,568/- made by the respondent no. 3 from the petitioner's payment. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ directing the respondents to refund the recovery amount alongwith interest @ 18% till the date of payment. SMT NIRMALA RAO 2 10.3 Any other relief(s) may also be given to the petitioners, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts & circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was initially appointed as a contingency paid employee to the post of Peon vide order dated 31.3.1976 under the respondents and got retired from service on 30.6.2015. He would contend that the services of the petitioner were regularised vide order dated 30.8.1990. He would also contend that on 23.6.2009, respondent No.3 revised his pay scale, and the service book was sent to the superior authority for verification. He would argue that an order of recovery to the tune of Rs.55,567/- was passed on 31.10.2009, which was subsequently quashed. He would also submit that a show-cause notice for recovery was again issued on 4.3.2010, and this Court, in WP(S) No. 813 of 2010, directed the petitioner to file a reply to the said show-cause notice dated 6.9.2011. He would further argue that the order of recovery has not been served till date, and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner, but the amount has been recovered. He would submit that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in 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 SLP(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 a mistake, the pay of the petitioner was wrongly fixed on a higher side, and when this fact was detected, a prompt decision was 3 taken for recovery. He would further submit that respondent No.3 has passed an order of recovery, taking into consideration all aspects of the case. He would also submit that an undertaking was given by the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents available on the record. 5. Taking into consideration the fact that the pay of the petitioner was wrongly fixed by the department itself in September, 2011, and it continued till February, 2015; the petitioner is a contingency paid employee; there was no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner; and the Chhattisgarh Revision of Pay Rules, 2009 & 2017 contain no provision with regard to undertaking and 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 4 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.” 7. Considering the facts of the present case and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the impugned order dated 23.6.2009 issued by the respondent authorities is hereby quashed. If any amount has been recovered from the petitioner, the same shall be refunded forthwith. 8. With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi