1 2025:CGHC:34416 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6567 of 2017  Suresh Kumar Nishad S/o Late Narendra Kumar Nishad, Aged About 30 Years Presently Working As Assistant Grade- Iii, Office Of Sub Divisional Officer, Rural Engineering Service Division Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh 2. Development Commissioner, Civil Lines Raipur Chhattisgarh , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Service Office Of The Development Commissioner, Civil Lines Raipur Chhattisgarh , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Service Division Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh , District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Aniket Verma, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate For State : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 21. 07.2025 1. The petitioner, who is the son of Late Narendra Kumar Nishad, has filed this petition. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of recovery passed against his father, and the amount of excess payment is being deducted from the salary of the petitioner, who was granted a SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.07.22 10:33:32 +0530 2 compassionate appointment. 2. Late Narendra Kumar Nishad was working with the respondents on the post of Time Keeper. He died in harness on 06.08.2014. He was paid excess payment from 01.04.1998 to 31.07.2008, and the order of recovery was issued after his death from his retiral dues vide order dated 11.05.2017. 3. Mr. Aniket Verma, Advocate, would submit that the father of the petitioner was a Class III employee and there was no misrepresentation or fraud and the excess payment, if any, was paid due to the mistake of the department. He would further submit that after 10 years, it was detected, and the order of recovery was passed on 11.05.2017, after his death. He would also submit that the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, (2015) 4 SCC 334. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, Panel Lawyer, would submit that the excess payment was made to the father of the petitioner, and when this fact came to the knowledge of the department, the order of recovery was passed. He would further submit that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 6. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner was a Class III employee and he was paid excess payment from 01.04.1998 to 31.07.2008; he died on 06.08.2014; whereas the order of recovery was passed on 11.05.2017 after his death, and the excess amount is being recovered from the petitioner’s salary, who was granted a compassionate appointment. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (White Washer) 3 (supra), in para-18 held as under:- “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 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.” 8. Taking into consideration the fact that there was no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the father of the petitioner in payment of excess payment; he was a Class III employee; the mistake of the department was detected after more than 10 years and the order of recovery was passed after the death of Late Narendra Kumar Nishad and further, most important issue that the amount of excess payment is being recovered from the salary of the petitioner, who was granted a compassionate appointment; therefore, the order of recovery passed by the respondent authority dated 11.05.2017 is hereby quashed. 4 9. The respondent authority is directed to refund the amount, if any, recovered with interest at the rate of 8% per annum. 10. Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant