1 2025:CGHC:36986 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 621 of 2023 1 - Ravindra Singh Thakur S/o Late Ramnath Singh Aged About 62 Years R/o Kududand, Near Chandani Chowk, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh Rajya Laghu Vanopaj (Vyapar Avam Vikas) Sahkari Sangh Maryadit Through Its Joint Registrar And Secretary, Vandhan Bhawan, Sector -24, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chief Conservator Of Forest And Chief General Manager, Vanopaj Sangh Bilaspur Forest Division, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Managing Director Jila Vanopaj Sahakari Union Maryadit, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivek Verma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate. Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 29/07/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “i. To call for the entire records available in the office of the Respondents pertaining to the case of petitioners. ii. That the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 08.12.2022 (Annexure P/1). iii. That the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to not deduct any excess payment from his retiral due or any other dues. iv. That the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to release the all pending retiral dues to the petitioner. v. Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working on the post of Lower Division Clerk and got retired on 30.6.2022 on attaining the age of superannuation. He further submits that, while he was in service, from time to time as per the guidelines of the State Government the benefit of pay scale was 3 extended by the respondent authorities in favour of the petitioner. However, after retirement of the petitioner, the respondents authority passed an recovery order issued by respondent No. 1 and directed the petitioner to deposit the amount before the authority. He contended that the petitioner is holding Class-III post and according to the decision in case of State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih(White Washer) and others, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 recovery of the payment made mistakenly to Class-III employees is not permissible. He also contended that the similar view has been taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others v. Jagdev Singh reported in (2016) 14 SCC 267. He also places reliance upon the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in case of State of Chhattisgarh v. Labha Ram Dhruv in Writ Appeal No.264 of 2020 and also in case of State of Chhattisgarh and others v. Roshan Lal Baghel in Writ Appeal No.265 of 2020. He submits that the order of recovery made by respondent No. 1 from the petitioner is erroneous and not permissible. Order dated 08.12.2022 so far as it relates to the petitioner may be set aside and direction be issued to respondent authority not to deduct any excess payment from his retiral due or any other dues from the petitioner. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2 4 opposes the same. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed with this writ petition. 5. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) 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 herein above, 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 5 extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.” 6. Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case of Labha Ram (Supra) observed as under: "9. In the case at hand, the Revision of Pay Rules, 2009 and 2017 do not make any enabling provision reserving option for the employer to seek refund of the amount paid in excess, by making the employee to furnish an undertaking. Even if we conclude, for the sake of arguments, that even in the absence of enabling provision under the Rules, undertaking given by the employee would operate, the fact remains that against the classes of employees against whom recovery would be impermissible in law, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (Supra), recovery from the employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service) would still be impermissible in law. Meaning thereby that even when undertaking is submitted by the employee, but he otherwise belongs to Class-III and Class-IV service, and the amount has been paid more than 5 years back, the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (Supra) would still 6 hold the field in favour of such employees, because the judgment in the matter of Rafiq Masih (Supra) has not been overruled, but only clarified, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its later judgment in the matter of Jagdev Singh, Supra. x x x 11.In view of the above and on finding that in the cases at hand, the recovery of the excess payment has been made more than 12 years ago; the writ petitioners belong to Class-III cadre in the services of the State Government, and small amount has been paid to them in a long span of time, which has now accumulated and the recovery of substantial amount is to be made against them, we are inclined to hold that the Writ Appeals have no substance. They deserve to be and are hereby dismissed." 7. In light of the above authoritative judgments, facts of the present case are to be examined. The alleged excess payment was not made by any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner. In the considered opinion of this Court, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra). Therefore, the impugned order dated 08.12.2022 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondent No. 1 is hereby set aside. 7 8. Respondents are further directed to release the retiral dues of the petitioner within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 9. Accordingly this petition is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions Certified Copy as per rules. SD/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat