1 2025:CGHC:16955 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5720 of 2024  Rajesh Pandey S/o Late Jaynarayan Pandey Aged About 62 Years S/o Late Jaynarayan Pandey R/o Lakhe Nagar (Pragati Nagar), Sai Gali, Near Prahladwa Talab, Bindrawangarh, Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. District Education Officer District Raipur (C.G.) 3. District Treasury Officer, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 4. Divisional Joint Director Fund Account And Pension, Raipur Division, District - Raipur (C.G.) 5. Principal, Pt. Girija Shankar Mishra Government Higher Secondary School, Raipura, District Raipur (C.G.) 6. Principal Government Higher Secondary School Raipura (Dharshiwa), District Raipur (C.G.) 7. Principal Government Higher Secondary School, Khokhopara, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 8. Block Education Officer Dharsiwa, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Sabyasachi Choubey, P. L. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 11/04/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner, who is retired from the post of Upper Division Teacher in Pandit Girija Shankar Mishra, Government Higher Secondary School, Raipura (C.G.) questioning the recovery made from the salary of the petitioner amounting to Rs.2,89,813/- stating that excess payment was made to the petitioner during the service period. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a sexagenarian and retired Class-III employee and 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/s Rafiq Masih & Ors. reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that when it came to the knowledge of the respondent authorities that excess payment had been made to the petitioner, the recovery order has been passed and the amount has already been recovered and there is no illegality in the recovery which has been made from the salary of the petitioner immediately before retirement. 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. (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 4 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 a 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. 8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court, the impugned recovery proceedings taken against the petitioner are hereby quashed and the respondent authorities are directed to return the said amount to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 9. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Sd/-d/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE $. Bhilwar