1 2025:CGHC:36895 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 511 of 2017 1 - Kartik Halder S/o Late Shri Madan Mohan Halder, Aged About 51 Years Presently Posted And Working As Assistant Grade Ill, Civil Hospital, Mana, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mahanadi Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - Director, Directorate Of Health Services, Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Medical And Health Officer, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Block Medical Officer, Community Health Center, Dharshva, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Joint Director Finance Section , Directorate Of Health Services, Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) SMT NIRMALA RAO 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate. For State/Respondents : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 29.07.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “i. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 24/2/2015 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.5/Block Medical Officer, Community Center, Dharshva, Raipur. Health ii. Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner. Iii. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, at the relevant time, the petitioner was a Class-III employee holding the post of Lower Division Clerk, Department of Health & Family Welfare, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. He would contend that on 24.2.2025, respondent No.5 issued an order for the recovery of Rs.5,39,020/-, on the ground that the salary of the petitioner was wrongly fixed in January, 2006 and this mistake continued till October, 2014. He would submit that, based on this premise, respondent No.5 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 3 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.5 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. 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, 2006 and continued till October, 2014; 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). 4 (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.” 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. The respondents are directed to refund the recovered amount to the petitioner within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, otherwise, the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 5% per annum. 8. With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi