1 2025:CGHC:50713 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3339 of 2022 Jagatraj Singh S/o Late Shri Jagmohan Singh Aged About 63 Years Sevanivratt Upnirikshak Kariyalay Police Adhikshak Raigarh Niwas D.P.S. Road Satna Zila Satna M.P. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Dwara Sachiv Grah Vh Police Vibhag Naya Raipur Zila Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Police Adhikshak, Raigarh Zila Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sambhagiya Suykat Sanchalak Kosh Lekha Avm Panson Bilaspur Zila Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Zila Koshalay Adhikari Raigarh Zila Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Abdul Moien, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Abdul Wahab Khan, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 10/10/2025 1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following relief:- 10.1 ;g fd] mRrjoknhx.k dks funsZf’kr fd;k tkos fd os ;kfpdkdrkZ ds lsokfuo`Rr gksus ds ckn mlds xszP;wfV@miknu en esa ls dVkSrh dh xbZ jkf’k dqy 225112@& nks yk[k iPphl gtkj ,d lkS ckjg :i;s e; C;kt ;kfpd 2 dks vfoyac Hkqxrku djsaA 10-2 ;g fd] mRrjoknhx.k dks funsZf’kr fd;k tkos fd ;kfpdkdrkZ dks mlds lsokfuo`fRr ds ckn feyus okyh miknku dh lEiw.kZ cdk;k jkf’k dk Hkqxrku vfoyac djsaA 10-3 ;g fd] mRrjoknhx.k dks funsZf’kr fd;k tko s fd os ;kfpd ds lsokfuo`fRr ds ckn mldh xszP;wVh jkf’k esa ls dh xbZ vos/k dVkSrh@olwyh djus okys vf/kdkfj;ksa ij dk;Zokgh djsaA 10-4 ;g fd] vU; vuqrks"k tks ekuuh; U;k;ky; mfpr le>s mRrjoknhx.k ls ;kfpd dks fnyok;k tkosA 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as Sub- Inspector in the Police department/respondent. On 31.03.2021, he retired from the service on attaining the age of superannuation. An amount of Rs. 2,25,112/- was recovered from the gratuity of the petitioner vide order dated 28.10.2021 (Annexure P/1), passed by respondent No. 3, therefore, this petition has been filed for refund of the amount recovered from the petitioner alongwith the interest and also for payment of the entire gratuity amount. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a Class-III employee who retired on 31.03.2021 and after his retirement, vide order dated 28.10.2021 (Annexure P/1), an amount of Rs. 2,25,112/- was recovered from his gratuity stating it to be a recovery on account of some excess payment made to the petitioner during the course of his employment. He further submits that the said recovery was made after the retirement of the petitioner and the petitioner being class-III employee, cannot be subjected to such recovery in light of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih(White Washer) and Ors. reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 therefore, this writ petition may be allowed and the amount recovered may be refunded to the petitioner alongwith interest. 4. Per contra, Mr. Shubham Bajpai, learned counsel opposes the 3 submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that some excess payment was made on account of wrong fixation of pay scale to the petitioner since 01.01.2001 to 01.01.2021, which is supposed to be recovered. He further submits that as the petitioner was not entitled to receive the said amount, which has mistakenly been paid to him, therefore, there is no illegality in the order dated 28.10.2021 (Annexure P/1). He lastly submits that the petitioner has also given his consent for recovery of excess amount paid to him, if any, from his retiral dues, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioner retired from the services on 31.03.2021 and the recovery, in light of the impugned order dated 28.10.2021 (Annexure P/1), was made after about 6-7 months after his retirement. It is not the case of the respondent that the said excess amount was paid to the petitioner on account of any misrepresentation or fraud played by him and it is also not in dispute that the petitioner is a class-III employee. 7. At this juncture, it would be relevant to take note of the landmark judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih(Supra) wherein, certain guidelines were laid down and it has been categorically held that it would be impermissible under the law for the employer to make such recovery. The situation envisaged in the said judgment reads 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 the employees belonging to Class III 4 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 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.” 8. Taking note of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which has also been reiterated in the further judgments, this Court finds the case of the petitioner to be pari materia with that of the situations reflected in the aforesaid judgment. 9. In view of the above, this writ petition deserves to be allowed. It is ordered that the respondent shall refund the amount of Rs. 2,25,1112/- to the petitioner within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which, the said amount shall carry interest @10% per annum from the date of recovery till the actual payment. 10. Thus, writ petition is allowed as indicated above. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput ) Judge Ami AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2025.10.15 19:00:03 +0530