1 2025:CGHC:59494 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4358 of 2022 1 - Rajendra Kumar Singh S/o Late Shri Thakur Narayan Singh, Aged About 62 Years R/o C-108, Infront Of Lifeworth Hospital, Samta Colony Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Govt. Of Chhattisgarh, Department Of Agriculture Development And Farmer Welfare And Bio-Technology Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Director, Department Of Fisheries, Indrawati Bhawan, Ivth Floor, (B-Block) Nava Raipur Atal Nagar (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Joint Director, Treasury Accounts And Pensions, Indrawati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanuj Patwardhan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, P. L. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Order on Board 08/12/2025 1. Following relief has been claimed in this writ petition:- 10.1 To call for the entire record from Respondent No. 2 pertaining to issuance of the order no. /1311/M./Stha./2022-23 dated 13.04.2022 and letter no. 1936/M./Stha./2022-23 dated 09.06.2022, 10.2 To issue an appropriate Writ quashing and setting aside the order no. /1311/M./Stha./2022-23 dated 13.04.2022 and letter no. 1936/M./Stha./2022-23 dated 09.06.2022. 10.3 To direct the Respondents to release retiral dues of the Petitioner alongwith interest till the date of actual payment. 2 10.4 Any other relief(s)/order(s)/direction(s) in favor of the Petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of Justice. 10.5 Cost of the Petition. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is retired from services on 30.04.2022 and the impugned order has been passed subsequent to the retirement of the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner in not any manner responsible for the said erroneous fixation of pay scale rather has there been any misrepresentation made by the petitioner for obtaining the said amount. To bolster his submissions, he placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 and Thomas Daniel Vs. State of Kerala and others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine 536 and also orders passed by this Court in the case of Saroj Kumar Chaudhari Vs. State of Chhattisgarh in WPS No.6755/2019 dated 03.09.2019 and in the case of Rajendra Prasad Verma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh in WPS No. 1762/19 dated 15.03.2019, therefore, he submits that the impugned orders may be set aside. 3. Opposing the submissions learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner was being paid excess amount on account of wrong fixation of pay scale from the year 2006 till his retirement, therefore, the said impugned orders were passed. He submits that an amount of Rs. 5,59,464/- has been ordered to be recovered. According to the State counsel since the mistake has been recently deducted, the State authorities have all the right to recover the same while releasing the retiral dues to the petitioner. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. It is not in dispute that the erroneous fixation was made in the year 2006 i.e. more than 16 years prior to the retirement of the petitioner. It is not the case of the respondent that the petitioner was in any manner responsible for obtaining the said amount nor the same was granted on a misrepresentation made by the petitioner. The 3 Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (Supra) has laid down certain criteria and under which the recoveries cannot be made which is reproduced hereinunder:- “(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.” 6. This has been followed in the case of Thomas Daniel (Supra) and various orders passed by this Court. 7. Under these circumstances, it appears that the cases cited by learned counsel for the petitioner squarely applicable to the case of petitioner. Consequently, the impugned orders are hereby set aside. The recovery made against the petitioner is held to be bad in law. If any recovery is made, the same should be refunded back within a period of 60 days. It is further observed that the Court has only interfered with the order of recovery, and the rectification of the proper fixation part shall remain undisturbed/ untouched. The respondents would be at liberty to grant retiral dues and pensionary benefits in accordance with the rectified pay scale. The writ petition is allowed as indicated above. 8. All pending applications stand disposed of. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Parul PARUL MITTAL Digitally signed by PARUL MITTAL Date: 2025.12.10 11:05:10 +0530