1 2025:CGHC:46004 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5631 of 2021  Gurughasidas Vishvavidyalaya Karmachari (Adhyapnettrar) Association Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Through Its President, Guru Ghasidas Vishvavidyalay Parisar, At And Post Koni, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus  Gurughasidas Vishvavidayalaya Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Through Its Registrar, At And Post Koni, Bilaspur District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Sharma, Advocate along with Mr. Mohanlal Kaushik, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rahul Ambast, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 09-09-2025 1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:- 10.1 It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to payment of ad-hoc bonus and order of the respondent for recovery of ad-hoc bonus paid for financial year 2015-16. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ commanding the respondent not to enforce it's order of recovery as issued on 12/03/2020./ Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.09.10 14:08:10 +0530 2 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may further kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ to quash the order of respondent dated 12/03/2020. 10.4 Any other relief/reliefs, which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case with the cost of the petition. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is an association of non-teaching employees working in Guru Ghasidas University, Bilaspur comprising of daily-rated, ad-hoc and regular Class-III and IV employees. He further submits that pursuant to the office memorandum issued by the Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India dated 03.10.2016, members of petitioner–association have been paid ad-hoc bonus for the accounting year 2015-16. He contends that respondent–University on 12.03.2020 took decision to recover the amount paid as ad-hoc bonus from the members of petitioner–association who were extended the benefit in the year 2015-16. He further contends that some of the members of petitioner–association have retired from services on account of attaining the age of superannuation and it would be very difficult for them to refund the amount. He has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Thomas Daniel Versus State of Kerala & Ors1. 3) On the other hand, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent–University submits that the benefit of ad-hoc bonus was to be extended to the employees of the Central Government but same was also extended to the members of 1. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 536 3 petitioner–association and when in year 2019, an audit objection was raised, decision was taken to recover the excess payment made to the members of petitioner–association. He further submits that Director General of Audit (Central Receipts), New Delhi issued letters on 27.02.2019, 28.02.2019 and 03.06.2022 to the respondent inquiring about the proceeding with regard to recovery. He contends that pursuant to direction/ memos received from the said authority, decision was taken by the respondent– University to recover the amount from members of petitioner– association as they were not entitled to receive the same. He argues that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 4) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5) Evidently, decision was taken by the respondent itself to extend the benefit of ad-hoc bonus to the members of petitioner– association, even though they were not entitled to receive it. But, there was no representation on the part of the members of petitioner–association and some of them have also retired from services as informed by Mr. Sharma. 6) Admittedly, the members of petitioner–association are/were daily- rated, ad-hoc and regular Class-III and IV employees working under the respondent–University and it would be very difficult for them to refund the amount assessed by the respondent as the order impugned has been issued after a period of 4-5 years. 7) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Thomas Daniel 4 (supra) held as under :- (13) In State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others wherein this court examined the validity of an order passed by the State to recover the monetary gains wrongly extended to the beneficiary employees in excess of their entitlements without any fault or misrepresentation at the behest of the recipient. This Court considered situations of hardship caused to an employee, if recovery is directed to reimburse the employer and 4 (2015) 4 SCC 334 disallowed the same, exempting the beneficiary employees from such recovery. It was held thus: “8. As between two parties, if a determination is rendered in favour of the party, which is the weaker of the two, without any serious detriment to the other (which is truly a welfare State), the issue resolved would be in consonance with the concept of justice, which is assured to the citizens of India, even in the Preamble of the Constitution of India. The right to recover being pursued by the employer, will have to be compared, with the effect of the recovery on the employee concerned. If the effect of the recovery from the employee concerned would be, more unfair, more wrongful, more improper, and more unwarranted, than the corresponding right of the employer to recover the amount, then it would be iniquitous and arbitrary, to effect the recovery. In such a situation, the employee's right would outbalance, and therefore eclipse, the right of the employer to recover. XXX XXX XXX 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). 5 (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 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.” (14) Coming to the facts of the present case, it is not contended before us that on account of the misrepresentation or fraud played by the appellant, the excess amounts have been paid. The appellant has retired on 31.03.1999. In fact, the case of the respondents is that excess payment was made due to a mistake in interpreting Kerala Service Rules which was subsequently pointed out by the Accountant General. 8) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Thomas Daniel (supra), order dated 12.03.2020 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and same is hereby set aside. 9) Accordingly, this petition stands allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a