1 2025:CGHC:8039 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7945 of 2022 1 - Smt. Sushila Sahu W/o Shri Triyugi Narayan Sahu Aged About 54 Years R/o Ward No. 06, Kargi Road, Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Higher Education Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Joint Director Treasury And Pension Bilaspur Division Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Principal Govt. Niranjan Kesharwani College Kota, Main Road, Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner :- Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate For State :- Mr. Abhishek Gupta, P.L. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 14.02.2025 1. 2. Challenge in the present Writ Petition is to Annexure P-1, dated 23.08.2022. VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 2. Vide the impugned Order, the Respondent No.3 has ordered the Petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.6,34,067/- so as to enable the Respondents in processing the death-cum-retiral dues payable to the Petitioner on account of death of her husband. 3. Facts of the case are that the husband of the Petitioner, Late Triyugi Narayan Sahu, was working as AG-I at Govt. Niranjan Kesharwani College Kota District Bilaspur and who died in harness on 14.04.2021. Upon the death of the said deceased employee, his wife is entitled for the death-cum-retiral benefits. In the process of settlement of the death-cum-retiral dues, the Respondent No.3 has issued a recovery order of total Rs. 6,34,067/-. 4. Learned Counsel for Petitioner submits that the impugned Order of recovery is per se illegal, bad in law in the light of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of "State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (2015 AIR SCW 501). According to learned Counsel for Petitioner, it is a case where the alleged excess payment was made in during June, 2017- December, 2020. Even if the said amount has been paid erroneously, the error was at the hands of the Authorities. Therefore, the recovery from the legal heirs now is not justified and the same is liable to be quashed. 5. Learned Government Advocate does not dispute the contentions put forth on behalf of the Petitioner. However, he submits that it is a case where the husband of the Petitioner was holding the Class- 3 III post and therefore the Judgment of Rafiq Masih (supra) would not be applicable in the instant case. 6. Having heard the contentions put forth on behalf of either side and on perusal of record, it would be relevant at this juncture to take note of the observations and directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) 2015 AIR SCW 501]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding the said matter has laid down certain situations under which the recovery is totally impermissible under law. The situations as envisaged in the said judgment are being reproduced herein below :- "(1) 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." 4 7. Plain perusal of the aforesaid situations would show that the situations would also be applicable to those employees and officers of Class-II cadre also if they fall under the other situations as mentioned in the Judgment of Rafiq Masih (supra) other than the situations where it has been held that it is impermissible under law so far as the recovery being made from Class-IV and Class-III employees. 8. In the instant case, from the facts itself it is evidently clear that the case of the Petitioner falls within the other situations provided in said Judgment of Rafiq Masih (supra). Moreover, it is the case where the employee has died in harness and, if that be the situation, the legal heirs should not be made to suffer for any excess payment erroneously paid by the Respondents to the deceased employee. Therefore, the Petitioner has the right for the entire retiral dues payable to him on the death of her husband i.e. the deceased employee. 9. The aforesaid view in Rafiq Masih (supra) has again been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court recently in the case of "Thomas Daniel Vs. State of Kerala & Ors." (Civil Appeal No.7115 of 2010, decided on 2.5.2022). 10. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix and the legal position as it stands, the impugned Order of recovery (Annexure P-1) is liable to be and is accordingly set aside/quashed. 11. Respondent Authorities are directed to ensure that the entire retiral dues payable to the Petitioner, without insisting or enforcing 5 the order of recovery which has been quashed by this Court, be released to the Petitioner and other legal heirs, if any, in accordance with the Rules governing the field, at the earliest. 12. Writ Petition stands allowed and disposed of accordingly. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha