1 2025:CGHC:13197 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3755 of 2020 1 - Smt. Anju Chelak W/o. Shri, Manohar Dewangan, Aged About 38 Years Working As Inspector At Mahila Thana, Bilaspur, District -Bilaspur, (Chhattisgarh). ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through -The Secretary, Department Of Home, Atal Nagar Mahanadi Bhawan, New, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 2 - Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Atal Nagar, New Raipur. (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Superintendent Of Police, District -Rajnandgaon. (Chhattisgarh). 4 - Superintendent Of Police, District - Bilaspur. (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Somkant Verma, Adv. For Respondents : Mr. Ritesh Giri, Panel Lawyer. (Hon’ble Mr. Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J) O rder on Board 19/03/2025 1. Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner seeking following relief :- “i. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash impugned order dated 27.12.2016 passed by the respondent No. 3 and direct the respondents concerned to Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2025.03.24 12:04:18 +0530 2 refund recovered amount to the petitioner with appropriate interest. ii. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may please also be granted.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that, the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Sub Inspector in the year 2004, subsequently, she was promoted on the post of Inspector in the year 2013. When she was posted as Inspector in the year 2016, then the order dated 27-12- 2016 (Annexure P-1) was issued by respondent No. 3 / Superintendent of Police, District Rajnandgaon for recovery of alleged excess payment made to her to the tune of Rs. 1,00,718/- and the same was recovered till May 2018 in 15 installments. Aforesaid recovery has been made from salary of the petitioner without providing any opportunity of hearing and without following principles of natural justice. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner belongs to Class 3 category employee. Such recovery was arbitrary and iniquitous as it has been made without issuing show cause notice or providing opportunity of hearing to her. Hence, it is prayed that, the impugned order (Annexure P-1) dated 27- 12-2016 be quashed and respondent No. 3 be directed to refund the amount recovered from the salary of petitioner along within interest. 3. Respondents/State has filed reply. Learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State, while referring to its reply, would submit that, the recovery order (Annexure P-1) was issued in the year 2016 and then amount has been recovered from the salary of the petitioner, thereafter, instant petition has been filed in the year 2020 after delay of about 4 years, hence, it is liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and latches itself. 3 He would further submit that, the petitioner ought to have been granted increment from 1-7-2007, but she has wrongly been granted increment from 1-7-2006, which was against the recommendations of ‘Bramhaswaroop Committee’. This fact was revealed when objection in this regard was raised from the office of Divisional Joint Director, Treasury, Account and Pension, Durg, thereafter recovery order was issued against petitioner and two other employees. Since excess amount of Rs. 1,00,718/- was paid because of wrong fixation of increment, which is a public money, therefore, it has been recovered from the salary of petitioner. Hence, this petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. It is not in dispute that, the petitioner belongs to Class – 3 category employee and alleged excess payment was made to the petitioner since 2006 because of wrongly granting her increment. This fact itself shows that, there is no misrepresentation or cheating etc. on the part of petitioner to grant her alleged excess payment. In other words, there is no fault on her part in alleged excess payment made to her. The respondents have not made any pleading that, the petitioner in any manner has mis-represented or has suppressed any material fact or wrong fixation has been made because of fraud committed by her. 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the issue related to recovery of excess payment made to employee, in the matter of State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) [(2015) 4 SCC 334] and has 4 observed thus :- “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.” 5 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. [(2009) 3 SCC 475] considering the issued with regard to recovery of excess payment made to the petitioner therein has held as under :- “57. This Court, in a catena of decisions, has granted relief against recovery of excess payment of emoluments/allowances if (a) the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, and (b) if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous. 59. Undoubtedly, the excess amount that has been paid to the appellant teachers was not because of any misrepresentation or fraud on their part and the appellants also had no knowledge that the amount that was being paid to them was more than what they were entitled to. It would not be out of place to mention here that the Finance Department had, in its counter-affidavit, admitted that it was a bona fide mistake on their part. The excess payment made was the result of wrong interpretation of the Rule that was applicable to them, for which the appellants cannot be held responsible. Rather, the whole confusion was because of inaction, negligence and carelessness of the officials concerned of the Government of Bihar. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant teachers submitted that majority of the beneficiaries have either retired or are on the verge of it. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case at hand and to avoid any hardship to the appellant teachers, we are of the view 6 that no recovery of the amount that has been paid in excess to the appellant teachers should be made.” 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the order of recovery has been issued in the year 2016 for alleged excess payment made to the petitioner from the year 2006 and further, the petitioner belongs to Class – 3 category employee, and in the light of the observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra) and Syed Abdul Qadir and ors. (supra), in the opinion of this Court, permitting recovery of excess payment from the petitioner, will be harsh upon her. 9. So far as objection raised by the learned counsel for respondents with regard to delay and latches is concerned, since the petitioner belongs to Class – 3 category employee, any amount paid, though wrongly, could be presumed to have been spent by her in reasonable time, thereafter, making recovery from her salary will create hardship and inconvenience to her. In such circumstances, having considered aforesaid facts, the contention of learned counsel for the respondents to dismiss this petition on the ground of delay and latches is not found to be correct, particularly considering the concern shown by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra). 10. In view of above discussion, this writ petition is allowed. The order of recovery dated 27-12-2016 (Annexure P-1) issued by the respondent No. 3 is set aside. Since the amount of alleged excess payment of Rs. 1,00,718/- has already been recovered from the salary of petitioner, therefore, the respondent No. 3 is directed to refund the aforesaid 7 amount to her, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7 % per annum. 11. Interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Pathak/-