-1- NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8843 of 2022 P.R. Yadu S/o Shri Ramnath Yadu Aged About 63 Years R/o Subhash Nagar, Kukaripara, Mahamaya Mandir Ward, Raipur Tah. And Distt. Raipur, Civil And Revenue Distt. Raipur (C.G.). ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Cooperative Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralay, Atal Nagar, New Raipur Distt. Raipur (C.G.). 2 - The Registrar Cooperative Societies, Indrawati Bhavan, New Raipur, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.). 3 - The Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, 1st Floor, Vivekanand Complex, Vivekanand Nagar, Pensionbada, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.). 4 - The Joint Director Treasury, Account And Pension, Raipur, Raipur Division, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For State : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 09.09.2025 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1. That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the entire records in connection of the petitioner's case. 10.2 That the Hon'ble court be further pleased to quash -2- the recovery proceedings/order dated 02.11.2022 (Annexure P/1) Respondent issued by the No.3 with respect to the petitioner for recovery of sum of Rs.3,45,951/-. 10.3. That the Hon'ble court be further pleased to direct the Respondent authority to pay the pension amount to the petitioner. 10.4. Any other order that the Hon'ble Court deems fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case be also passed. 10.5 That the cost of the petition be also awarded to the petitioners.” 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was working in the Cooperative Department on the post of Senior Cooperative Inspector under the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative, Raipur. The petitioner retired from service on 30.04.2022 on attaining the age of superannuation. He would further submit that the on 07.07.2022, the respondent authority prepared the petitioner’s pension case and forwarded it to the Joint Director, Treasury, for fixation of pension. The Joint Director objected that the pay fixation in the second time-scale was defective. The pension case was again prepared with a revised calculation of Rs.73,400/-, and a chart was prepared showing excess payment made to the petitioner. Thereafter, the impugned recovery order dated 02.11.2022 was passed for deduction of Rs.3,45,951/- from the petitioner’s gratuity, which is illegal and contrary to pension rules. It is further submitted that the order of recovery is contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih -3- (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334. Learned counsel places reliance on paragraph 18 of the said judgment to contend that recovery in such circumstances is impermissible in law. 3) On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that the recovery order was issued pursuant to the objection raised by the Treasury office. Since the petitioner had been paid in excess of his entitlement, the impugned recovery order is just and proper. 4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5) It is not in dispute that the petitioner was a Class–III employee, that the payment in question had been made continuously for a period of more than five years prior to issuance of the recovery order, and that there is no allegation of fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment on the part of the petitioner. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) has summarized the permissible exceptions to recovery in paragraph 18, and has clearly held that recovery in the following cases would be impermissible in law:- “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 herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be -4- 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.” 7. In the present case, the petitioner was a Class–III employee, he has already been retired from service, and the alleged excess payment was detected after more than five years. There is also no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation against the petitioner. Therefore, the case of the petitioner squarely falls within clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) of the guidelines laid down in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra). 8. In view of the above discussion, and in light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra), the recovery order dated 02.11.2022 (Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed. -5- 9. The amount, if any, recovered from the petitioner shall be refunded to him forthwith. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed at the admission stage. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim