1 2025:CGHC:4411-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 48 of 2025 1 - Jeevan Lal Yadav S/o Ghasiya Ram Yadav Aged About 64 Years R/o Village Kirari, House No. 272, Tahsil Sakti, District Sakti (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of Tribal Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 2 - Commissioner Tribal Development Department, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 3 - Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development Department, Janjgir, District Janjgir- Champa C.G. 4 - Account General Treasury And Pension Department, Infront Of Vidhan Sabha, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 5 - Deputy Director Treasury And Pension Department, Bilaspur Division Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. 6 - Treasury Officer Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. for the State Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate 2 Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 24.01.2025 1. The present writ appeal has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 13/12/2024 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No. 8176/2024 whereby the the writ petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Cook/Class -4 employee in Tribal Department on 27/01/1990. His services was regularized vide order dated 15/07/1993 and he superannuated on 31/08/2022. After retirement his pension was also fixed. On 11/10/2022, the petitioner served with a notice with the effect that his salary was wrongly fixed at a higher pay scale and therefore, recovery order of Rs. 68,401 was issued. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the amount towards excess payment of salary cannot be recovered after retirement of the employee, who is Class-4 employee. The wrong fixation of pay has not been detected by the authorities during his entire service tenure or even within five years from its fixation, therefore, in view of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others (2015) 4 SCC 334, the order of recovery towards excess payment of salary may be quashed. Yet the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has submitted his consent that the amount 3 may be recovered from him. He would further submit that the petitioner has submitted his consent under the pressure of authorities and therefore, the same can be excluded from consideration and the order of recovery may be quashed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and has submitted that the petitioner has submitted his consent and considering the consent given by the petitioner, the order of recovery was issued on 11.10.2022. Once the petitioner has given his consent, he cannot turn back from his consent and therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner and there is no merits in the writ appeal. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the writ appeal as well as the writ petition. 6. From perusal of the impugned order as well as the document annexed with the writ petition, it is quite vivid that after considering the consent given by the petitioner, recovery order was passed on 11/10/2022, during his tenure the petitioner was very well aware that his salary was wrongly fixed and he has given his consent for recovery of excess payment of his salary. The department has informed the petitioner with respect to the wrong fixation of his pay scale and thereafter, he submitted his consent for its recovery in which there is no perversity or illegality that recovery order has been passed on his consent and the learned Single Judge has also rightly considered the consent given by the petitioner for recovery of the excess payment of salary. 7. Upon perusing the impugned order, we notice that the same has been rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable 4 infirmities are noticed. Learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition by the impugned order has adverted to all the facts of the case. 8. Therefore, we do not find any sufficient ground to differ with the reason assigned by the learned Single Judge in its order dated 13.12.2024 and therefore, the writ appeal is liable to be and hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Sagrika SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.01.30 10:39:42 +0530