1 2025:CGHC:31366 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6843 of 2025 1 - Zarina Begum W/o Mirza Karim Beg Aged About 64 Years Quarter No. 09, Ward No. 41, Police Colony Sarkanda Bilaspur Tahsil And District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home And Police Affairs Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur P.S. And Post Rakhi District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Inspector General Of Police Police Head Quarter Raipur New Raipur P.S. Rakhi (C.G.) 3 - The Superintendent Police Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Accountant General Office Of Accountant General (Lekha And Hak) Zero Point Baloda Bazar Road Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Joint Director Of Division (Funds Account And Pension) Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Badruddin Khan, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.09 19:06:01 +0530 2 08/07/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the impugned order of recovery dated 21.10.2022, passed by the respondent No.5, whereby an amount of Rs. 68,592/- is recovered from the departmental dues of the husband of the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the husband of the petitioner was working as head constable and was a class-3 employee. During his service tenure, he died in harness on 02.08.2022. After death of her husband, at the time of disbursement of the departmental dues of the husband of the petitioner, the respondent No.5 has passed the order on 21.10.2022, directing to recover the amount of Rs. 68,592/- towards excess payment by wrong fixation of the pay scale of the husband of the petitioner and at the time of payment of the departmental dues, the same has been deducted. He would further submit that, the recovery which has been made by the respondent authorities is contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of “State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih and others” reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, and therefore, the order of recovery from the departmental dues of the deceased employee is liable to be quashed and recovered amount is directed to be paid to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that when the excess payment was come to the knowledge of the respondent authorities, the recovery order has been passed as such there is no illegality in the order impugned. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents and the pleadings made by the petitioner as well as the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra). 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra) has issued guidelines which reads as under :- “10. In State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (Supra) this Court held that while it is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship where payments have mistakenly been made by an employer, in the following situations, a recovery by the employer would be impermissible in law: (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. (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. 4 (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. 11. The principle enunciated in Proposition (ii) above cannot apply to a situation such as in the present case. In the present case, the officer to whom the payment was made in the first instance was clearly placed on notice that any payment found to have been made in excess would be required to be refunded. The officer furnished an undertaking while opting for the revised pay scale. He is bound by the undertaking.” 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was holding Class-III post and the recovery of the amount as stated above has been made by the respondent authorities on the ground that excess payment has wrongly been made to the petitioner. 7. The principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra) is that the recovery from the Class- III employee is not permissible stating excess payment of salary. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has not made any fraud to receive the excess salary. The same view has also been reiterated by the Supreme Court recently in the matter of Jogeshwar Sahoo & Ors. v. The District Judge, Cuttack & Others (decided in SLP (C) No. 5918/2024 on 04.04.2025) 5 8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court, the impugned recovery order dated 21.10.2022 taken against the petitioner is hereby quashed. If any, amount has been recovered pursuant to the recovery order dated 21.10.2022, the same shall be returned to the petitioner within a period of 08 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 9. As far as releasing of recovered amount of Rs. 68,592/- of the petitioner is concerned, the respondents’ authority is directed to proceed for releasing the recovered amount of the petitioner in accordance with law and take necessary steps within the stipulated period, preferably as early as possible. 10. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved