1 2025:CGHC:40236 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8590 of 2023 1 - Shri Lomesh Kumar Gangboi S/o Shri Jailal Gangboi Aged About 53 Years R/o Ward No. 15, Madhuban Colony, Kundrupara, Tehsil And District Balod (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgrah Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - District Education Officer Balod, District Balod (C.G.) 4 - Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Gurur, District Balod (C.G.) 5 - Principal Adarsh Government Higher Secondary School, Balod, District Balod (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate For State : Mr. Ajay Pandey, Advocate (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge) Order on Board 11/08/2025 1. The petitioner challenges the order dated 21.07.2023 passed by respondent No. 4 directing recovery of alleged excess payments following an enquiry after his service merger from Panchayat to Education Department. The recovery initiated, amounting to Rs. 1,00,399/-, is barred by the five-year limitation period and violates settled legal principles. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition, seeking the following reliefs: “10.1. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the order Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 dated 21.07.2023 and direct the respondents not to make any further recovery from the petitioner's salary against the excess amount paid to them from today. I 10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to refund the amount which has been already recovered/deducted from the salary of the petitioner with an interest of 9% per annum on the same. 10.3 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court may also be granted in favor of the petitioner.” 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that The petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Teacher Panchayat at the Government Middle School, Bundeli, Development Block Daundilohara, District Balod, on 13.10.2008, joining the post as a Class III officer on 17.10.2008 (Annexure P/2). Subsequently, on 27.02.2017, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Lecturer Panchayat and was posted at Government Higher Secondary School, Sorar, Tehsil Gurur, District Balod, joining the said post on 01.03.2017 (Annexure P/3). On 01.07.2018, the petitioner’s services were merged from the Panchayat Department to the Department of School Education, pursuant to an order dated 28.09.2018 passed by the Directorate of Public Instructions (Annexure P/4). Following the merger, the petitioner was re-designated as a Class II officer, having commenced duties as Lecturer, whereas previously he was categorized as a Class III employee. The petitioner had been performing his duties to the satisfaction of the department until he received the impugned recovery order. Upon enquiry, it was revealed that recovery proceedings had been initiated for an alleged excess payment made to the petitioner from 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2023, amounting to Rs. 1,00,399/-. The department has already commenced monthly deductions of Rs. 5,000/- from the petitioner’s salary, with Rs. 15,000/- having been deducted to date (Annexure P/5). These recovery proceedings were initiated after the expiry of the statutory 3 five-year limitation period, thereby contravening established legal principles. It was further communicated to the petitioner that since his promotion to Lecturer Panchayat on 27.02.2017, he was entitled to one increment after completion of one year of service, i.e., from July 2018; however, the increment was erroneously granted from July 2017 (Annexure P/6). Additionally, the department failed to properly apply the Chhattisgarh Revision of Pay Rules, 2017, notified on 19.05.2017 and effective from 01.01.2016. According to Rule 10, an employee is entitled to one annual increment on the date of appointment, promotion, or upgradation. Sub-rule 2 further stipulates that if promotion occurs between 2nd January and 1st July, the increment shall be granted on 1st January. Thus, even if the department’s action were deemed correct, the increment should have been granted from January 2018, not July 2018 (Annexure P/7). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334 has laid down several important principles regarding recovery of excess payments, including the impermissibility of recovery beyond five years and from employees belonging to Class III and IV services. The impugned order, thus, stands in direct violation of these settled legal principles and the relevant statutory rules, rendering it liable to be quashed. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner are wholly unjustified and bad in law. The petitioner contends that the impugned recovery action has been initiated long after the expiry of the statutory limitation period of five years, which is a settled principle under applicable law. The excess payment to the petitioner allegedly made by the respondent authorities dates back to a period exceeding five years prior to the initiation of the recovery proceedings. As such, any attempt to recover this amount now is barred by limitation and is legally impermissible. Further, it is submitted that the respondents have completely ignored the authoritative 4 pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334, wherein the Court has categorically outlined circumstances under which recovery of excess payments by the employer is impermissible. Among these, it is explicitly held that recovery cannot be made from employees belonging to Class III service after the lapse of five years, and that recovery from such employees after such a long delay is contrary to principles of equity and fairness. Despite this, the respondents have proceeded with recovery in a manner that is arbitrary and contrary to the law. It is also submitted that the entire act of the respondent State authorities in initiating the recovery is arbitrary, malafide, and lacking any reasonable or legal justification. The petitioner, who has diligently served in his capacity, has been put to undue hardship and prejudice by this action, which is entirely disproportionate and unjust. The excess payment alleged to have been made to the petitioner is not due to any act or omission on his part, but is a clear and manifest error attributable to the administrative machinery of the respondents. Therefore, it would be wholly unjust and inequitable to saddle the petitioner with the burden of refunding such excess amount. Moreover, the recovery order has been passed in complete disregard to the relevant rules and the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was not afforded a proper opportunity to explain or contest the recovery claim prior to the initiation of proceedings. Such procedural lapse further vitiates the recovery proceedings and renders the impugned order liable to be quashed. In light of the above submissions, the learned counsel prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash the impugned recovery order as illegal, arbitrary, and beyond the authority of the respondents, thereby granting relief to the petitioner from the oppressive and unlawful recovery proceedings. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that the recovery 5 proceedings initiated against the petitioner are lawful and justified. It is contended that the excess payment was made due to an error, and the department is entitled to recover such amounts to safeguard public funds. The respondent authorities have acted within their jurisdiction and followed due procedure in issuing the recovery order. The recovery pertains to a clear case of excess salary disbursed to the petitioner, and the period of recovery is in accordance with applicable rules and regulations. It is further submitted that the petitioner, having received excess salary beyond his entitlement, cannot claim immunity from repayment merely on the ground of limitation or procedural lapses. The provisions of the Chhattisgarh Revision of Pay Rules, 2017, and other relevant regulations empower the department to initiate recovery. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused documents annexed along with the record. 6. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.07.2023 passed by respondent No. 4 directing recovery of alleged excess payments amounting to Rs. 1,00,399/-, purportedly made following an enquiry after the serviceb of petitioner was merged from the Panchayat Department to the Department of School Education. The petitioner, initially appointed as a Class III officer in 2008 and promoted to Lecturer Panchayat (Class II) in 2017, submits that the recovery proceedings are barred by the statutory limitation period of five years and contravene well-established legal principles. 7. It is not disputed that the excess payments relate to increments erroneously granted from July, 2017 instead of the correct date, in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Revision of Pay Rules, 2017, which provides that increments following promotion between 2nd January and 1st July should be granted from 1st January of the succeeding year. The department initiated recovery proceedings more than five years after the alleged excess payment was made, which the petitioner contends is barred by limitation and violates the 6 principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334. The Supreme Court has categorically held that recovery of excess payments cannot be made from Class III and Class IV employees beyond a period of five years, recognizing the hardship and inequity such recovery entails. Furthermore, the excess payment resulted from a clear administrative error by the respondents, for which the petitioner cannot be held liable, and to compel recovery would be harsh, arbitrary, and unjust. Procedurally, the petitioner was not afforded a fair opportunity to contest the recovery claim before deductions commenced, thereby violating principles of natural justice. 8. Having carefully examined the facts, the legal provisions, and relevant case law, it is held that the impugned order directing recovery is illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in law. Consequently, the order dated 21.07.2023 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to immediately discontinue any further deductions from the salary of petitioner in respect of the said excess payment. Additionally, the respondents shall refund the amount already recovered, if any, within a reasonable period. No further recovery proceedings shall be initiated against the petitioner concerning this matter. 9. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Shayna