1 2025:CGHC:43083 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4944 of 2022 * - Smt. Lalita Tigga W/o Late Sukhsai Tigga Aged About 63 Years Retired Upper Division Teacher (Wrongly Mentioned As Headmistress In Retirement Order), R/o Village - Kharakona, Post - Bargidih, Tahsil - Dhourpur (Lundra), District - Surguja (C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The District Education Officer District - Surguja (C.G.) 3 - The Divisional Joint Director Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) 4 - The District Treasury Officer Ambikapur, Surguja (C.G.) 5 - The Block Education Officer Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Harish Khuntiya, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 25/08/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned recovery order (Annexure P/1) and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to refund the recovered amount of Rs.26,124/- to the petitioner, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of recovery to its payment. 10.2 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may be given Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.08.28 17:42:42 +0530 2 2. The petitioner was holding post of Upper Division Teacher under the respondents. She retired from services on account of superannuation on 31.05.2021. Excess payment was made to the petitioner from 30.06.2016 to 09.03.2017 to the tune of Rs.26,124/-. The order of recovery was passed by the office of Divisional Joint Director, Treasury Accounts and Pension, Surguja, Division Ambikapur on 07.01.2022. 3. Mr. Harish Khuntiya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was Class-III employee; the order of recovery was passed after retirement and it would be very difficult for the petitioner to refund the said amount. He would further contend that there was no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner and the benefit was extended by the department itself. He would pray to set aside the order dated 07.01.2022 4. On the other hand, Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents would oppose the submission made by Mr. Harish Khuntiya. 5. I have heard learned counsels for the parties. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in 2015 AIR SCW 501 while deciding the said matter has laid down certain situations under which the recovery is totally impermissible under law. The situations as envisaged 9in the said judgment are as under:- “(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. 3 (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.” 7. Considering the fact that the petitioner was Class-III employee, the order of recovery was issued after retirement on 07.01.2022 and there was misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner and thus, applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra), the order impugned dated 07.01.2022 is hereby quashed. The amount, if any, recovered shall be refunded to the petitioner forthwith. 8. Consequently, the petition is allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti