1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5248 of 2018  Sunderlal Rajwade S/o S/o Shri Ramratan Aged About 55 Years Working On The Post Of Forester Posted At Forest Range Office Pratapppur, Forest Division- Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Forest Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Conservator Of Forest, Surguja Forest Circle Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3. The Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division Surajpur District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 4. The Forest Range Officer, Pratappur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate For State : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 24-07-2025 1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:- 10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order of recovery of Rs- 4,69,600/- from the salary of Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.07.24 14:53:54 +0530 2 the petitioner ANNEXURE P/1. 10.2 Any other relief or reliefs may also be granted to the petitioner which this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially, petitioner was appointed to the post of Godown Keeper under respondent- department vide order dated 20.04.1990 and pursuant to policy decision taken by the State Government, post of Godown Keeper was merged with post of Forest Guard in the year 2012. He further submits that on 24.03.2017, order of recovery was issued against petitioner on the ground that at the time of revision of pay- scale, petitioner was getting higher pay-scale for which he was not entitled. He contends that petitioner is a class-III employee and after five years, mistake was deducted by the respondent- department and thereafter, order of recovery has been issued. He further contends that issue involved in present case is squarely covered by 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 submits that due to mistake, higher pay-scale was granted to petitioner and when this mistake came into knowledge of the department, order of recovery was issued within period of five years. She further submits that earlier pay-scale of petitioner has already been restored and 1. (2015) 4 SCC 334 3 amount of recovery already made would be refunded forthwith. 4) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5) Taking into consideration the contents of reply filed by State Government and the fact that petitioner is a class-III employee and there was no misrepresentation on the part of petitioner, order of recovery dated 24.03.2017 is hereby set-aside. Respondent authorities are directed to refund the recovered amount with interest @ 6% p.a., if already not paid. 6) Accordingly, this petition stands allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya