1 2025:CGHC:43259 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4331 of 2021 1 - Yashwant Singh Banjare S/o Devchand Banjare Aged About 47 Years Working As Lecturer (L.B.) And Posted At Government Boys Higher Secondary School Nawagarh, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 2 - Virendra Kumar Hirwani S/o Tirith Ram Hirwani Aged About 42 Years Working As Lecturer (L.B.) And Posted At Government Boys Middle School Nawagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 3 - Mahendra Kumar S/o Shri Ram Prasad Aged About 49 Years Working As Lecturer (L.B.) And Posted At Government Boys Higher Secondary School Nawagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 4 - Gangadhar Kulkarni S/o Shri Dadan Singh Aged About 42 Years Working As Lecturer (L.B.) And Posted At Government Girls Higher Secondary School Nawagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 5 - Nakul Ram Sahu S/o Aju Ram Sahu Aged About 45 Years Working As Lecturer (L.B.) And Posted At Government Boys Higher Secondary School Nawagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 6 - Ramakhilesh Sahu S/o Paras Ram Sahu Aged About 49 Years Working As Teacher (L.B.) And Posted At Government Girls Middle School Nawagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 7 - Smt. Sushma Roy W/o Shri Satish Roy Aged About 51 Years Working As Lecturer (L.B.) And Posted At Government Girls Higher Secondary School Nawagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 8 - Smt. Pushplata Banjare W/o Rameshwar Banjare Aged About 46 Years Working As Lecturer (L.B.) And Posted At Government Girls Higher Secondary School Nawagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 9 - Smt. Kunj Khare W/o Sumend Khare Aged About 48 Years Working As Lecturer (L.B.) And Posted At Government Girls Higher Secondary School Nawagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 10 - Smt. Vaijantimala Mahant W/o Pradeep Mahant Aged About 50 Years Working As Teacher (L.B.) And Posted At Government Boys Middle School Nawagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 11 - Hemendra Kumar Banjare S/o Banshilal Banjare Aged About 44 Years Working As Teacher (L.B.) And Posted At Government Boys Middle School Nawagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 12 - Pawan Kumar Sahu S/o Tripurari Sahu Aged About 42 Years Working As Teacher (L.B.) And Posted At Government Boys Middle School Nawagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioners Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.09.02 14:54:03 +0530 2 Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Mantralaya New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Local Fund Audit , Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief Municipal Officer Nagar Panchayat Nawagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 4 - Principal / D.D.O. Government Boys Higher Secondary School Nawagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Barun Kumar Chakrabarty, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents No. 1, 2 & 4 For Respondent No. 3 : : Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, Panel Lawyer Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 26/08/2025 1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 10.(i) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash Annexure P-1 and P-2 and direct the respondent to refund the recovered amount if any, in the interest of justice. 10.(ii)Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case including cost of the petition, may also be granted. 2. Mr. Barun Kumar Chakrabarty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that earlier the petitioners were working on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade – I and II (Urban Bodies) at Nagar Panchayat Nawagarh, District Bemetara (C.G.). Thereafter their services were absorbed with the School Education Department vide Policy decision dated 01.07.2018. He would contend that on account of mistake committed by the department, the petitioners were being paid higher salary then their entitlement for period of 03 years from year 3 2015 to 2018. He would contend that the department detected the mistake and thereafter order of recovery was issued on 30.05.2020 by respondent No. 3. The details of recovery amount is reproduced herein below:- Sl. No. Name of Employees Post Total Recovery yearwise Total Year 2015-16 Year 2016- 17 Year 2017-18 1 Yashwant Singh Banjare Lecturer 40644.00 39690.00 42038.40 122372.40 2. Virendra Kumar Hirwani Teacher 11004.30 11812.50 12667.20 35484.00 3. Mahendra Kumar Lecturer 73620.00 79582.50 84564.00 237766.50 4. Gangadhar Kulkarni Teacher 52126.20 56295.00 59716.80 168138.00 5. Nakul Ram Sahu Lecturer 39641.40 42862.50 45588.00 128091.90 6. Ramakhilesh Sahu Teacher 11261.70 13285.00 13015.20 36561.90 7. Smt. Sushma Roy Teacher 56759.40 61357.50 65215.20 183332.10 8. Smt. Pushplata Banjare Lecturer 35738.40 38610.00 40924.79 115273.19 9. Smt. Kunj Khare Teacher 12033.90 12892.50 13780.80 38707.20 10. Smt. Vaijantimala Mahant Teacher 12033.90 12892.50 13780.80 38707.20 11. Hemendra Kumar Banjare Teacher 12033.90 12892.50 13780.80 38707.20 12. Pawan Kumar Sahu Teacher 11004.30 11812.50 12667.20 35484.00 3. Mr. Barun Kumar Chakrabarty would further contend that the petitioners are Class-III employees, there was no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioners and the mistake was committed by the department and later on, it was detected and the order of recovery was issued in the year 2020 after 05 years, therefore, the order of recovery is bad-in-law. 4 4. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respective respondents would oppose. 5. Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 would submit that due to clerical mistake, the petitioners were being paid higher salary and this mistake was detected by the department and immediately thereafter order was issued by respondent No. 3 on 30.05.2020. He would contend that these are not cases of wrong fixation of salary, therefore, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 would not apply. 6. Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondents No. 1, 2 and 4 would support the contention made by Mr. Jitendra Pali. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 8. In the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para-10 which reads as under:- “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 5 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.” 9. In the present case, due to mistake committed by the department, the petitioners were being paid higher salary from the month of April 2015 and it continued till 2018. It is not a case of respondents that there was any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioners and further the petitioners are Class-III employees and order has been passed after 05 years from April 2015, therefore, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter Rafiq Masih (supra) would apply in its full force. Accordingly the order dated 30.05.2020 pertaining to the petitioners is hereby quashed. The recovery made, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioners forthwith. 10. Consequently, the petition is allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti