1 2025:CGHC:20405 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4921 of 2021 1 Krishna Kumar Kshatri S/o Late Shri N.S. Kshatri Aged About 61 Years Occupation Assistant Grade 03, Office Of Executive Engineer Loknirman Vibhag Rastriya Rajmarg Division Bilaspur Residence Of M.I.G.C. 104 Yadunandannagar , Tifra , Bilaspur , Thana Sirgitti , District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Lok Nirman Vibhag, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 Chief Engineer Rastriya Rajmarg Parichetra Lok Nirman Vibhag Pension Bada Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 Executive Engineer Lok Nirman Vibhag Rastriya Rajmarg Sanbhag, Bilaspur , District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Saumitra Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent/ State : Ms. Akanksha Verma, P.L. JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.05.06 10:28:32 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 05/05/2025 Heard. 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner, who is a Class-III employee working in the office of Executive Engineer is questioning the recovery order dated 05.04.2018 to the tune of Rs.76,775/- stating that excess payment was made to the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Class -III and the recovery order issued by the respondent authorities is contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab V/s Rafiq Masih & Ors. reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that when the excess payment was come to the knowledge of the respondent authorities, the recovery order has been passed and there is no illegality in the recovery order. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents and the pleadings made by the petitioner as well as the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra). 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra) 3 has issued guidelines which reads as under :- “10. In State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (Supra) this Court held that while 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 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. 11. The principle enunciated in Proposition (ii) above cannot apply to a situation such as in the present case. In the present case, the officer to whom the payment was made in the first instance was clearly placed on notice that any payment found to have been made in excess would be 4 required to be refunded. The officer furnished an undertaking while opting for the revised pay scale. He is bound by the undertaking.” 6. It is not in dispute that the recovery of the amount as stated above has been made by the respondent authorities on the ground that excess payment has wrongly been made to the petitioner. 7. The principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra) is that the recovery from the Class- III employee is not permissible stating excess payment of salary. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has not made any fraud to receive the excess salary. The same view has also been reiterated by the Supreme Court recently in the matter of Jogeshwar Sahoo & Ors. v. The District Judge, Cuttack & Others (decided in SLP (C) No. 5918/2024 on 04/04/2025). 8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court, the impugned recovery proceedings taken against the petitioner are hereby quashed and the respondent authorities are directed to return the amount if recovered to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 9. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Jyoti