1 2025:CGHC:41816 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6362 of 2017 1 - Heeralal Namdeo S/o Late Shri Kamal Prasad Namdeo, Aged About 63 Years Retired As Assistant Director, Gram Udyog Sanchaanalaya, Resham Division , R/o Amelidi Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary, Gram Udyog Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - Additional Director, Gram Udyog Sanchaanalaya, Indrawati Bhawan, A Block, 4th Floor, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts, And Pension, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Shri A.N. Bhakta, Advocate alongwith Shri Vivek Bhakta, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, P.L. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 19.08.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:- “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, the order dated 10.10.2017 by which alleged excess amount of rs.1,69,901/- has been recovered be kindly quashed SMT NIRMALA RAO 2 and the respondents be kindly directed to refund the said amount with 12% interest. 10.3 That, the respondent no.1 & 2 be kindly directed to decide the representation dated 23.10.2017 submitted by the petitioner. 10.4 Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner stood retired from the post of Assistant Director (Sericulture) on 31.7.2017 on attaining the age of superannuation. He would contend that vide order dated 10.10.2017, respondent No. 2 issued a recovery order for the sum of Rs. 1,69,901/- on the ground of excess payment made to the petitioner during the period from 1.8.2012 to 30.6.2017. He would further contend that the petitioner has deposited the said amount on 11.10.2017. He would further submit that there was no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner with regard to the excess payment made. He would also contend that at the time of implementing the Pay Revision Rules, 2009, the salary of the petitioner was fixed on the higher side due to a mistake of the department. He would argue that the order impugned dated 10.10.2017 was issued after the retirement of the petitioner, and the issue involved is squarely covered by the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab & Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Others reported in 2015 (4) SCC 334. He would also submit that the respondents may be directed to refund the recovered amount. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that 3 prior to retirement, the petitioner was benefited with the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission in accordance with the Pay Revision Rules, 2009, and at that time, the pay-scale of the petitioner was wrongly fixed on the higher side. He would contend that after retirement, the Divisional Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts and Pension, Raipur, detected the error in the fixation of the pay-scale and thereafter, the order of recovery was issued. He would also contend that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra), has held as follows in para 18, which is reproduced hereunder:- “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 4 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. The petitioner was extended the benefits of the 6th Pay Commission, and his pay scale was revised by the department according to the Pay Revision Rules, 2009. However, his pay-scale was wrongly fixed with effect from 1.8.2012 and it continued till 1.1.2017. The order of recovery was issued after his retirement, on 10.10.2017. Since the petitioner retired on 31.7.2017. Further, the order of recovery was issued after the expiry of five years after retirement, making it difficult for the petitioner to refund the said amount. The petitioner deposited the excess amount paid to him on 11.10.2017, as his pension case was pending consideration before the respondent authorities. 7. Considering the facts stated above and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the order Annexure-P/1 dated 10.10.2017 is hereby quashed. The respondent authorities are directed to refund the recovery amount deposited by the petitioner, i.e., Rs. 1,69,901/- with interest @ 5% per annum forthwith. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi