1 2025:CGHC:1003 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3520 of 2017  Ram Narayan Kannauje S/o Late Shri Ori Ram, aged about 63 years, R/o Jai Jawan Chowk, Near Santoshi Mata Mandir, Ravigram, Telibandha, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Director, Directorate of Local Fund Audit, Indravati Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. General Manager, Chhattisgarh State Seed and Agriculture Development Corporation, Telibandha Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner :- Mr. Sudhanshu Upadhyay, Advocate. For State-Respondents :- Dr. S.K. Dewangan, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent No.3 :- Mr. Vivek Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 07/01/2025 1. This writ petition is directed against the impugned order dated 02.01.2017 by which the respondent No.3 has ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.01.10 11:42:29 +0530 2 directed to recover amount of 1,86,033/- from the retiral ₹ dues of the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has retired from the post of Senior Operator, Class III post, on 30.10.2016 and Time-Scale Pay was granted to the petitioner on 06.05.2010 to 01.07.2016, as such, the case is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) 1 and in light of the said decision of the Supreme Court the instant writ petition deserves to be allowed. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and support the impugned order. The would further submit that the recovery has rightly been directed and, therefore, the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. Before considering the case of the petitioner it would be appropriate to notice the decision rendered by the Supreme 1 (2015) 4 SCC 334 3 Court Rafiq Masih (supra) in which their Lordships of the Supreme Court in paragraph No.18 have 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 the retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from the 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. ” 6. Coming to the facts of the present case in light of principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the above-stated judgment (supra), it is quite vivid that the Time-Scale Pay was granted to the petitioner way-back on 4 06.05.2010 upto 01.07.2016 and ultimately petitioner was retired on 30.10.2016, as such, paragraph No.(i), (iii) & (v) of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra), squarely apply and, therefore, the impugned order dated 02.01.2017 directing recovery of 1,86,033/- ₹ from the retiral dues of the petitioner, is hereby quashed. 7. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein- above. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit