1 2025:CGHC:38728 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1658 of 2017  Smt. Krishna Singh W/o Shri P. K. Singh, Aged About 57 Years Lecturer, Vidyut Grah Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya No. 2, Korba West, District Korba Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2. Secretary, Vidyut Nagar Shiksha Samiti, Korba W Distt. Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3. Principal, Vidyut Grih Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya No. 2, Korba West, District Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 4. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Korba West, Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 5. Chief Engineer Ma. Sa.. Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co. Ltd. Dangania, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rahul Ambast, Advocate For State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. G.A. For Respondents No. 2 and 3 : Mr. Anup Majumdar, Advocate along with Mr. Prateek Singh Thakur, Advocate For Respondents No. 4 and 5 : Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 05-08-2025 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.08.06 14:43:04 +0530 2 10.1 It is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records concerning the case of petitioner from the possession of the respondents for its kind perusal. 10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of time-scale pay/ promotion w.e.f. 01.07.2015. 10.3 Any other relief/ reliefs which this Hon’ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, with cost of the petition may also please be granted to the petitioner. 10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ quashing and setting aside the impugned communication dated 18/01/2016 (Annexure P/9) declaring the same to be illegal arbitrary and inoperative in law. 10.5 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 29/11/2017 (Annexure P/11) issued by the Respondent No. 2 by declaring the same to be illegal and inoperative in law. 2) Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that initially, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Lower Division Teacher vide order dated 09.10.1991 and subsequently, she was promoted to the post of Upper Division Teacher w.e.f. 01.07.1995, and the benefits attached to the promotional post were extended to her. He further submits that a writ petition [WP No. 2690 of 1996] was filed by the petitioner wherein direction was issued by the co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 12.03.2013 to the respondent authorities to grant seniority to the petitioner w.e.f. 31.10.1995, whereas earlier the petitioner was granted seniority w.e.f. 01.07.1995. He contends that respondents No. 2 and 3 vide order dated 29.11.2017, fixed her seniority from 31.10.1995, but at the same time, passed an order of adjustment of excess payment made during the period between 3 01.07.1995 and 31.10.1995 from the salary of the following months. He further contends that there was no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner in the grant of benefits, and the decision with regard to the recovery has been taken after a period of 22 years; therefore, the order dated 29.11.2017 is bad in law. He has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others1. 3) On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes. 4) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3 submits that the petitioner was paid the salary in excess between 01.07.1995 and 31.10.1995, and when this mistake was detected by the department, the order dated 29.11.2017 was issued pursuant to the instruction issued by respondents No. 4 and 5 dated 01.12.2015. 5) Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 4 and 5 submits that the petitioner is an employee of respondents No. 2 and 3, and no relief has been claimed against respondents No. 4 and 5. He would contend that no instruction was issued to respondents No. 2 and 3 to issue the order impugned. 6) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 7) Evidently, there was no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner as she was promoted by the department itself and benefits were also extended to her and later on, pursuant to the order passed by the co- ordinate Bench in WP No. 2690 of 1996, her seniority was fixed from 31.10.1995. It appears that after 22 years, respondents No. 2 and 3 have taken a decision to reckon her seniority from 31.10.1995 and to 1. (2015) 4 SCC 334 4 adjust the excess amount paid to her between 01.07.1995 and 31.10.1995, from the salary of the following months. 8) Perusal of the order dated 29.11.2017 would show that there is no whisper with regard to any instruction issued by respondents No. 4 and 5. 9) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra) observed that:- 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 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. 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. 5 10) Taking into consideration the facts of the present case and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra), the order dated 29.11.2017 whereby a direction was issued by respondent No. 2 to adjust the excess amount paid to the petitioner from 01.07.1995 to 31.10.1995 from the salary of the following months, is hereby quashed and it is directed that the recovery, if any, made shall be refunded forthwith. 11) The petitioner would be at liberty to make a representation before respondents No. 2 and 3 claiming therein the time-pay scale, and the authorities concerned are directed to decide it expeditiously, strictly in accordance with the law. 12) Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya