1 WPS No. 530 of 2017 2025:CGHC:7424 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 530 of 2017  Gendlal Dewangan S/o Late Shri Ratan Dewangan, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Tulsipur, Ward No. 17, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Planning & Statistic Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, P.S. Rakhi, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. The Director, District Planning and Statistic, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 3. The Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts and Pension, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner :- Mr. Vibhor Goverdhan, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Anoop Majumdar, Advocate. For State-Respondents :- Mr. Sharad Mishra, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 10/02/2025 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 24.10.2016 passed by the Deputy Director, District Planning and Statistic, Rajnandgaon, by which an amount ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.02.13 12:03:33 +0530 2 WPS No. 530 of 2017 of ₹1,21,101/- has been deducted from the pensionary payable dues to the petitioner. 2. Mr. Vibhor Goverdhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the order passed by the competent authority is in the teeth of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others 1 , therefore, the impugned order deserves to be dismissed and the deducted amount is liable to be refunded to the petitioner. 3. Mr. Sharad Mishra, learned State counsel, would submit that the deduction which was made from the pensionary payable dues to the petitioner is in accordance with law. In support of his submission he relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Others v. Jagdev Singh 2 . 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submission made herein above and gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 1 (2015) 4 SCC 334 2 (2016) 14 SCC 267 3 WPS No. 530 of 2017 5. Admittedly, in the instance case the recovery of excess amount of 1,21,101/- is said to have been made from ₹ 07.06.2006 to August, 2016 from the the pensionary payable dues to the petitioner. However, in this regard it would be appropriate to notice the decision rendered by the Supreme 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 4 WPS No. 530 of 2017 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 recovery from the employees to whom excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued is impermissible in law. In the instant case, the excess payment has been made effective since 07.06.2006 more than 10 years have been completed before the recovery order was passed, therefore, the recovery of amount of ₹1,21,101/- from the pensionary dues to the petitioner in not in accordance with law and even otherwise, the impugned order of recovery would be iniquitous, harsh and arbitrary to the petitioner. Furthermore, the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Jagdev Singh (supra) would not apply in the instant case as in that case at the time of granting revised pay scale the respondent therein had given undertaking that he would refund the excess amount paid and thus, he was bound by undertaking which is clearly distinguishable to the facts of the present case. 5 WPS No. 530 of 2017 7. Consequently, the impugned order of recovery dated 24.10.2016 is hereby quashed. The respondent-State is directed to refund the amount of ₹1,21,101/- to the petitioner with interest @ 6% from the date of deduction till the date of payment within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit