1 2025:CGHC:4772 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3883 of 2023 Suresh Kumar Chhatri S/o. Late Shri D.M. Chhatri, Aged About 62 Years R/o. Flat No. F/504, Wallfort Heights, Bhatagaon, Ring Road No. 1, Raipur, P.S.- Purani Basti, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home/police Station And Post - Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Director General Of Police (DGP), Police Head Quarter (PHQ), Sector -19, Police Station And Post - Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Inspector General Of Police (IGP), O/o Inspector, General Of Police, Shankar Nagar, Raipur Range, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Divisional Joint Director, O/o. Divisional Joint Director, Treasury - Accounts And Pension, Raipur Division, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 5 - Deputy Inspector General Of Police (DIGP), / Senior Superintendent Of Police (Seni, SP), O/o. DIGP And Senior SP, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Shri Abhishek Pandey, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, PL. GOURI MUDALIAR Digitally signed by GOURI MUDALIAR Date: 2025.02.03 11:50:07 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 27/01/2025 1.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has filed this writ petition against the order of recovery dated 18-5-2023 (Annexure P/4) issued by the respondent No.5 by which the petitioner has been directed to pay the amount of Rs. 3,65,584/- which is paid in excess to the petitioner who retired from the post of Inspector (M) on 30-06-2023. 2. From the documents, it is clear that the respondent No.5 has issued an order of recovery of excess payment to the tune of Rs. 3,65,584/- showing the wrong pay fixation from 28/01/1987 that continued till 01- 07-2022 on the post of Inspector (M). This order has been assailed by the petitioner by filing the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that so called erroneous pay fixation occurred on the default of their official staff and finally after lapse of 36 years of his service, respondent No.5 issued the order impugned for recovery of so called excess payment to the tune of Rs.3,65,584 /- without there being any prior notice or intimation. He would further submit that recovery of alleged excess amount is against the law in view of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab vs. Rafiq Masih (While Washer), reported in 2015 (4) SCC 334. He would further submit that if the amount of Rs. 3,65,584/- was directed to be refunded, it will be irreparable loss to the petitioner as it would amount to 3 unjust, therefore, the recovery order dated 18.05.2023 (Annexure P/4) kindly be quashed. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that since the illegal excess payment has been made to the petitioner, therefore, the recovery order dated 18.05.2023 (Annexure P/4) is justified and does not call for any interference. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The State has filed their return wherein they have stated that recovery has been done in accordance with law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana vs. Jagdeo Singh, reported in (2016) 14 SCC wherein it has been held in para 11 as follows. “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”. 7. The facts projected by the petitioner in this case and the facts reflected from the judgment of High Court of Punjab and Haryana vs. Jagdeo Sing (supra) are all together different as this case relates to judicial officer whereas in the present case, the petitioner was Inspector (M) which is a Class-III post. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the subsequent judgment of Thomas Deanial Vs. State of Keralam 2022 SCC Online SC 536 has observed as under:- “13) In State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others4 wherein this court examined the validity of an order passed by the State to recover the monetary gains 4 wrongly extended to the beneficiary employees in excess of their entitlements without any fault or misrepresentation at the behest of the recipient. This Court considered situations of hardship caused to an employee, if recovery is directed to reimburse the employer and 4 (2015) 4 SCC 334 disallowed the same, exempting the beneficiary employees from such recovery. It was held thus: “8. As between two parties, if a determination is rendered in favour of the party, which is the weaker of the two, without any serious detriment to the ther (which is truly a welfare State), the issue resolved would be in consonance with the concept of justice, which is assured to the citizens of India, even in the Preamble of the Constitution of India. The right to recover being pursued by the employer, will have to be compared, with the effect of the recovery on the employee concerned. If the effect of the recovery from the employee concerned would be, more unfair, more wrongful, more improper, and more unwarranted, than the corresponding right of the employer to recover the amount, then it would be iniquitous and arbitrary, to effect the recovery. In such a situation, the employee's right would outbalance, and therefore eclipse, the right of the employer to recover. xxxxxxxxx 5 18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service). (ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from the 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.” 6 14) Coming to the facts of the present case, it is not contended before us that on account of the misrepresentation or fraud played by the appellant, the excess amounts have been paid. The appellant has retired on 31.03.1999. In fact, the case of the respondents is that excess payment was made due to a mistake in interpreting Kerala Service Rules which was subsequently pointed out by the Accountant General.” 8.Now coming to the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner retired from services as Inspector (M), which is Class III therefore, recovery amount is against the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court. 9. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The recovery order dated 18.05.2023 (Annexure P/4) issued by the respondent No. 5 is quashed. It is directed that the State shall release the pension and other retiral dues of the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10.Accordingly, the present Writ Petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad ) Judge gouri