1 2025:CGHC:61094 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1339 of 2021 1 - Baishakhuram Bhagat S/o Late Bhikhariram Aged About 63 Years Sewaniwarit Pradhan Aarakshak Karyalay Police Adhikshak Bilaspur Niwasi Ward No. 12 Vidhyanagar Pendra Jila Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Sachiv Grih Wa Police Vibhag Naya Raipur, Jila Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Police Adhikshak Bilaspur Jila Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector Bilaspur, Jila Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Sambhagiya Sanyukt Sanchalak Kosh Lekha Awam Pension Vibhag Bilaspur Jila Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Jila Koshalay Adhikari Bilaspur, Jila Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abdul Moin Khan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 15.12.2025 1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 07.07.2020 Annexure P/1 passed by the respondent No. 4 whereby recovery of Rs. 87080/- was directed from the petitioner. HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2025.12.17 10:49:48 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as a Head Constable under the respondents and retired upon attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2020. He submits that while issuing the Pension Payment Order, a communication dated 07.07.2020 (Annexure P/1) was issued by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 wherein it was observed that an amount of Rs. 87,080/- was liable to be recovered from the petitioner. He further submits that the alleged excess payment sought to be recovered pertains to an excess amount paid towards gratuity. He submits that the petitioner is a Class-III employee and places reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors., (2015) 4 SCC 334, and prayed that the writ petition may be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the excess amount was paid due to an error in the calculation of the petitioner’s gratuity and, therefore, was rightly directed to be recovered. He further submits that the petitioner had furnished an undertaking and on that basis the impugned order was passed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents available on record. 5. In the case of Rafik Mashi (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows: “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 the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service). (ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the 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 3 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. In light of the above authoritative pronouncement, the facts of the present case are to be examined. The petitioner is a Class-III employee and the impugned order (Annexure P/1) was made after his retirement. The alleged excess payment was not made on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner. In the considered view of this Court, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision in Rafiq Masih (supra). Accordingly, the impugned order (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent authorities directing recovery of the alleged excess payment is set aside. The amount recovered, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioner within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. In the result, the writ petition is dispose of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge H.Ansari