1 2025:CGHC:51186 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3899 of 2022 1 - Dilip Kumar Sharma S/o Late Shri B. P. Sharma Aged About 63 Years R/o Near Gattani Honda, Champa Road, Nahar Ke Niche, Naila-Janjgir, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Department Of Health, Mantralaya, Indrawati Bhawan, 3rd Floor, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Divisional Joint Director Department Of Health Services, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Chief Medical And Health Officer District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 5 - Deputy Director Treasury Accounts And Pension, Bilaspur Division, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Divisional Joint Director Treasury Accounts And Pension, Bilaspur Division, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 7 - Civil Surgeon-Cum-Hospital Superintendent District Hospital- Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents {Cause title taken from Case Information System} 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Srajan Pandey, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Topi Lal Bareth, Panel Lawyer. {Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sachin Singh Rajput} Order on Board 14/10/2025 1. Instant writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs :- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records in relation to the case of the petitioner from the possession of respondents for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order of recovery dated 22.04.2022 (Annexure -P/1). 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Cout may kindly be pleased to issue a writ or writs/ order or orders directing the respondent authorities to finalize the pension case of the petitioner in accordance with the entries made in the service book and award interest at the rate of 8% for the delayed paymet of pension and retiral dues. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kinldy be pleased to grant any other relief/relief's in favour of the petitioner, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Grade-III on 29.10.1982 and he is discharging his duties with utmost sincerity and honesty since then. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Sangank (Computer Operator) vide order dated 21.12.1987. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Accountant on 5.6.2008 and on the post of Head Clerk on 5.4.2013. He 3 submits that the petitioner has retired from the post of Head Clerk on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.6.2021 as class -III employee. He submits that after retirement of the petitioner, impugned order dated 22.4.2022 was issued asking the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 764579.00/-, which is an amount of excess payment paid to the petitioner for wrong fixation of his pay scale for the period from 1.7.2007 to 1.7.2020. He further submits that the petitioner, being a class-III employee, cannot be subjected to recovery of excess payment in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others etc. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc . reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334. He also placed reliance upon the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Ravishankar Gupta vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others1 in support of his submission. He submits that impugned order may be set aside. 3. Opposing the submission made on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner himself was 'Accountant' and was well aware of the fact that excess amount was being paid to him. He submits that on account of excess payment paid to the petitioner, he has unduly been enriched the salary. As such, there is no irregularity and perversity in the impugned order warranting interference of this Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. It is not in dispute that petitioner stood retired from service with effect from 30.6.2021 from the post of Head Clerk, which is a class-III cadre post and that the impugned order dated 22.4.2022 has been passed directing the recovery of excess amount from the petitioner after his retirement on attaining the age of 1 WPS No. 7120 of 2021, decided on 16.02.2022 4 superannuation. It is also not in dispute that alleged excess payment of recovery was to be made due to wrong fixation of his pay scale for the period from 1.7.2007 to 1.7.2020. 6. The law with regard to recovery of excess payment from class III or Class IV employee has already been settled by the Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others (supra), in which it has been held that recovery of excess payment cannot be made from the class III & Class IV employee after their retirement. The law which has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 18 is produced hereinbelow :- “18. it is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship where payments have mistakenly been made by an employer, in the following situations, a recovery by the employer 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 5 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.” 7. Taking the aforesaid situations as has been envisages by the Supreme Court in afore-cited case with the facts of the present case, it would clearly reveal that case of the petitioner is squarely covered within the parameters as prescribed in the aforesaid judgment, hence, the impugned order of recovery of excess amount is liable to be and is hereby set aside. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 22.4.2022 is allowed. Respondents are directed to finalize the retiral dues to the petitioner expeditiously preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 9. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. No cost(s). No Sd/- Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput ) Judge Ami / Deepti DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Digitally signed by DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Date: 2025.10.16 17:02:03 +0530