1 2025:CGHC:55442 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2156 of 2021 1 - Durga Prasad Sharma S/o Shri Ghanaram Sharma Aged About 63 Years Retired Assistant Sub Inspector, R/o 29, Near Masjid, Balram Singh Plot, Yadunandan Nagar Tifra, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretay, (Home Department) Mantralya, Mahandi Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Inspector General Of Police Bilaspur Range, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Divisional Joint Director Treasury Accounts And Pension, Bilaspur, Division, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Sahdev Yadav on behalf of Mr. S. B. Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhishek Singh, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 13.11.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for the following relief(s); “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority not to deduct gratuity amount from the account of the petitioner. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to returned back the gratuity amount of Rs. 65,959/- with interest to the petitioner accordingly. 10.3 Any other order or orders, writ or writs, direction or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in favor of the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2025.11.14 16:38:44 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as an Assistant Sub-Inspector under the respondents and retired on 30.06.2020 on attaining the age of superannuation. He submits that on 18.08.2020, after the retirement of the petitioner, the impugned order was passed by the respondents directing recovery of an amount of Rs. 65,959/– from the petitioner. Thereafter, while settling the retiral dues, the aforesaid amount was recovered from the gratuity payable to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a Class-III employee and no notice whatsoever was issued to him prior to effecting the said recovery. He submits that the petitioner was never informed of the nature or basis of the alleged excess payment. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors., (2015) 4 SCC 334, learned counsel contends that since the petitioner is a Class-III employee and had already retired, no recovery could have been made from his retiral dues, and the present matter is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment. 3. Opposing the submissions, learned State counsel submits that the excess amount paid to the petitioner has been recovered; however, he is not in a position to state the period for which such excess payment is claimed to have been made. 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. 3 (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. 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 issued 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, failing which it shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of its recovery till actual payment is made. 7. In the result, the writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge H.Ansari