1 2025:CGHC:24447 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4598 of 2025 1 - Sonsay Marar S/o. Sundar Lal, Aged About 64 Years, Village - Juralee, Diprapara, Post - Katghora, District - Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Public Health Engineering (P.H.E.), Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Engineer-In-Chief, Department of Public Health Engineering (P.H.E.), Atal Nagar, Sector-19, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering (P.H.E.) Zone- Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Superintendent Engineer, Public Health Engineering (P.H.E.) Bilaspur, Circle- Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Executive Engineer Korba, Public Health Engineering (P.H.E.), Department, Division Korba, District - Korba (C.G.) 6 - Divisional Joint Director, Treasury Accounts and Pensions, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 7 - Treasury Officer, District Treasury Korba, District - Korba (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate. For State/Respondents : Mr. S.P. Kale, Addl. Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 16-06-2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition praying for the following relief:- 10.1 Issue a writ in the nature of certiorrari quashing the impugned notice dated 05.09.2020 (Annexure P/1). Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN 2 20.2 That Rs.1,06,432/- deducted amount of the petitioner may kindly be refunded with interest. 10.3 Any other relief, that the Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted in favour of the petitioner against the respondents. 10.4 Costs of the petition be awarded to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was retired work charged Assistant Mechanic Grade-III and is retired on 30-06-2023. During his service tenure certain excess payment was made to him towards his salary and an order of recovery of excess payment was issued by the department on 05-09-2020 and in furtherance thereof the amount was recovered by the department in 36 installments from his salary. Thereafter, he is retired on 30-06-2023. Since the amount paid in excess to the employee without there being any fault of him, it cannot be recovered by the department as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, (2015) 4 SCC 334 and in light of the aforesaid principle no recovery can be made from the petitioner also. Therefore, the amount which has already been recovered from him towards excess payment can be refunded to him for which the present petition has been filed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and has submitted that the recovery order was passed on 05-09-2020 and after about five years the petitioner has challenged the recovery order. The petitioner has been retired from 30-06-2023 and despite that he has not challenged the impugned order of recovery dated 05-09-2020 and therefore, the petition suffers from delay and laches, for which there is no explanation from the petitioner. The amount has already been recovered in 36 installments and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 3 4. From perusal of the documents and the order of recovery (Annexure-P/1) it transpires that the order has been passed by respondent No.5 for recovery of Rs.1,06,432/- from the petitioner in 36 installments of Rs.2,956/-. The order of recovery from the petitioner has been challenged first time by way of the present petition, i.e., after about five years of the recovery order. During his service tenure, evenafter his retirement within a reasonable period the petitioner has not challenged the order of recovery and he permitted the department to recover the amount from his salary without raising any objection. 5. In the matter of Bichitranand Behra v. State of Orissa and others, 2023 Live Law SC 883, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para 21 has held as under:- “21. Profitably, we may reproduce relevant passages from certain decisions of this Court: (A) Union of India v Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648: “To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But 4 there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the reopening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or refixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion, etc., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. Insofar as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period is concerned, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a consequence, the High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition.” (emphasis supplied) (B) Union of India v N Murugesan, (2022) 2 SCC 25:” 6. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, further that the order of recovery dated 05-09-2020 is first time challenged by way of present petition after about five years, the petition filed by the petitioner suffers by delay and laches, therefore, the same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Aadil