1 2025:CGHC:51395 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4195 of 2019 1 - Shri Mahesh Pujari S/o Shri Late Jaylal Pujari Aged About 58 Years R/o Dindayal Colony, Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home (Police), Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., 2 - Director General Of Police Headquarter Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisarh., 3 - The Superintendent Of Police Saf, Narayanpur, District Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh., 4 - The Commandant Caf, 16 Th Battalion, Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Hari Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri Aman Deep Singh, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J Order On Board 15/10/2025 : 1. Grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is with regard to the recovery of excess payment of Rs.2,57,989/- on account of wrong fixation of pay vide recovery order dated 19th March, 2019. KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2025.10.16 11:26:33 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had joined as Constable in the year 1986 and subsequently, he was promoted on the post of Company Commander. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the petitioner has been superannuated. As the petitioner belongs to Class-3 category, no recovery is permissible, as per parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others1 particularly clause 10 (i) and as such, the impugned recovery order may be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would submit that for fixation of pay according to the Chhattisgarh Wage Revision Rules, 2017 and the Revised Pay Structure, the petitioner had submitted his undertaking on 14.6.2017 and, therefore, the principles laid down in the matter of Rafiq Masih (Supra) would not be applicable. Reliance is placed in the matter of High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Others Vs. Jagdev Singh2. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition carefully. 5. In the matter of Rafiq Masih (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that when the excess unauthorised payment is detected within a short period of time, it would be open for the employer to recover the same. Conversely, if the payment had been made a for a long duration of time, it 1 (2015) 4 SCC 334 : 2015 AIR SCW 501 2 (2016) 14 SCC 267 3 would be iniquitous to make any recovery. Interference because an action is iniquitous, must really be perceived as, interference because the action is arbitrary. All arbitrary actions are truly, actions in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The logic of the action in the instant situation, is iniquitous, or arbitrary, or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, because it would be almost impossible for an employee to bear the financial burden, of a refund of payment received wrongfully for a long span of time. 6. Moreover, the Revision of Pay Rules, 2017 does not make any enabling provision reserving option for the employer to seek refund of the amount paid in excess, by making the employee to furnish an undertaking. Even for the sake of arguments that even in the absence of enabling provision under the Rules, undertaking given by the employee would operate, the fact remains that against the classes of employees against whom recovery would be impermissible in law, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (Supra), recovery from the employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service) would still be impermissible in law. Meaning thereby that even when undertaking is submitted by the employee, but he otherwise belongs to Class-III and 4 Class-IV service, and the amount has been paid more than 5 years back, the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (Supra) would still hold the field in favour of such employees, because the judgment in the matter of Rafiq Masih (Supra) has not been overruled, but only clarified, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its later judgment in the matter of Jagdev Singh, Supra. 7. In the case at hand, excess payment has been made, as per the chart enclosed in the return, for the period from 27.6.1999 to 1.2.2019, and the recovery has been calculated as Rs.2,57,989/-. Since the petitioner is a Class-3 employee and the excess payment has been made way back, this Court is of the opinion that the said recovery is impermissible in law. 8. Accordingly, the impugned recovery order dated 19.3.2019 is quashed/set aside. However, it is made clear that the respondents shall pay future payment according to the correct revised pay fixation. The amount which has already been recovered 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 the respondents shall pay interest @ 6% per annum. 9. With the aforesaid direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Barve