1 2025:CGHC:53480 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8960 of 2023 Smt. Sushila Tekam W/o Late Shri Albert Tirki, Aged About 61.5 years, R/o Qtr. No. AG/1, Aasma Colony, Sakri Road, Bilaspur, P.S. Sakri, Tahsil and Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through its Secretary, Department of Home/Police Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, Police Station and Post Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director General of Police (DGP) Police Head Quarter (PHQ), Sector-19, P.S. and Post Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Inspector General of Police (IGP) O/o Inspector General of Police, Near Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur Range, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Divisional Joint Director O/o Divisional Joint Director, Treasury Account and Pension, Bilaspur Division, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Superintendent of Police (SP) O/o Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.10.31 18:00:07 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 31.10.2025 1. Heard Mr. Abhishek Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Devesh G. Kela, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondents. 2. The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):- “(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to produce all the relevant records relating to case of the petitioner before this Hon'ble Court for its kind perusal. (ii) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/quash the impugned show cause notice dated 20.09.2023 for recovery of an amount of Rs. 4,25,586/- against the petitioner issued by Respondent No. 5 SP, Bilaspur (Annexure P/2). (iii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/quash the impugned recovery order dated 27.09.2023 against the petitioner for an amount of Rs. 4,25,586/- issued by Respondent No. 5 SP, Bilaspur (Annexure P/4). 3 (iv) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct respondent authorities to refund the deducted amount to the petitioner with interest of 10% in relation to recovery notice dated 20.09.2023 and recovery order dated 27.09.2023 issued by Respondent No.5 SP, Bilaspur. (v) That this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to direct respondents to give suitable compensation to the petitioner for the mental trauma and agony, harassment and hardships suffered by him as also cost of the litigation.” 3. Mr. Abhishek Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that that the petitioner is serving on the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) in the Police Department under the administrative control of the Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur (respondent No. 5). During the course of her service, Respondent No. 5 forwarded the service book of the petitioner to the office of the Divisional Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts and Pension, Bilaspur (respondent No. 4) for the purpose of enquiry and verification of pay fixation. He further submits that upon such verification, the respondent No. 4 found that due to an erroneous fixation of pay, the petitioner had been paid excess salary with effect from 01.07.2010, and accordingly, the pay fixation was amended and it was directed that the excess payment be recovered from the petitioner. The order dated 08.08.2023, issued 4 by respondent No. 5 in pursuance thereof, has been annexed with the writ petition as Annexure P/1. Subsequently, after a lapse of about one and a half months, the respondent No. 5 issued a show cause notice dated 20.09.2023, informing the petitioner that excess payment to the tune of Rs.4,25,586/- had been made to her from 01.07.2010 owing to wrong pay fixation and calling upon her to submit a reply. 4. Mr. Pandey further submits that in response, the petitioner submitted her reply dated 27.09.2023 contending that any excess payment, if made, was not due to any misrepresentation or fault on her part, but due to an error committed by the office staff during pay fixation. She, therefore, urged that the proposed recovery was impermissible in law and contrary to settled legal principles. However, on the same day, i.e., 27.09.2023, the respondent No. 5 passed an order holding the petitioner’s reply to be unsatisfactory and directing recovery of the excess amount. 5. Reliance has been placed by the petitioner on several judgments of this Court wherein it has been consistently held that recovery of excess payment made due to no fault of the employee is not permissible in law. In support of her contention, the petitioner has referred to the orders passed by this Court in Sunil Kumar Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others [W.P.(S) No. 8913/2019, decided on 05.11.2019], State of Chhattisgarh & Others v. Labha Ram Dhruv & Other Analogous Matters [W.A. 5 No. 264/2020, decided on 22.09.2021], State of Chhattisgarh & Others v. Roshan Lal Baghel [W.A. No. 265/2020, decided on 09.12.2021], Bhairo Prasad Mishra v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others [W.P.(S) No. 3689/2022, decided on 12.08.2022], Amir Ram Toppo v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others [W.P.(S) No. 10525/2019, decided on 05.04.2023], and Baijnath Jatav v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others [W.P.(S) No. 6894/2021 and analogous matters, decided on 03.08.2023]. The petitioner submits that the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and, therefore, the impugned orders directing recovery deserve to be quashed. 6. Mr. Abhishek Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner neither misrepresented any fact nor was at fault in the matter of pay fixation. It is contended that in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334, and Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 536, recovery of excess payment is not permissible (i) from employees who are due to retire within one year, and (ii) where the excess payment pertains to a period exceeding five years. It is thus submitted that as the petitioner has been retired on 31.03.2024 and the alleged excess payment pertains to a period exceeding 13 years (from 2010), the impugned recovery order dated 6 27.09.2023 is contrary to the settled principles of law and is liable to be quashed and set aside. 7. Per contra, Mr. Devesh G. Kela, learned State counsel, appearing for the respondents, fairly submits that he concurs with the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and does not dispute the legal position that recovery of excess payment made due to no fault of the employee is impermissible in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (supra) and Thomas Daniel (supra), as well as by this Court in several analogous matters. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed with this writ petition. 9. The recovery of an amount has civil consequence and it is well settled principle of law that no order of civil consequence can be passed without compliance of Principle of Natural Justice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Bhagwan Shukla v. Union of India and Other, (1994) 6 SCC 154 has held as follows : “3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. That the petitioner's basic pay had been fixed since 1970 at Rs, 190 p.m. is not disputed. There is also no dispute that the basic pay of the appellant was reduced to Rs.181 p.m. from Rs. 190 pan. in 1991 retrospectively w.e.f. 1812.1970. The appellant has obviously been visited with civil consequences but he had been 7 granted no opportunity to show cause against the reduction of his basic pay. He was not, even put on notice before his pay was reduced by the department and the order came to be made behind his back without following any procedure known to law. There, has, thus, been a flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice and the appellant has been made to suffer huge financial loss without being heard. Fair play in action warrants that no such order which has the effect of an employee suffering civil consequences should be passed without putting the concerned to notice and giving him a hearing in the matter. Since, that was not done, the order (memorandum) dated 25.7.1991. which was impugned before the Tribunal could not certainly be sustained and the Central Administrative Tribunal fell in error in dismissing the petition of the appellant. The order of the Tribunal deserves to be set aside. We, accordingly, accept this appeal and set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 17.9,1993 as well as the order (memorandum) impugned before the Tribunal dated 25.7.1991 reducing the basic pay of the appellant From Rs. 190 to Rs. 181 w.e.f. 18.12,1970.” 10. The recovery of any amount from an employee entails civil consequences, and it is a settled principle of law that no such order can be passed without adhering to the principles of natural justice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhagwan Shukla (supra), 8 held that any reduction of pay or financial detriment imposed without notice or opportunity of hearing is a flagrant violation of natural justice and unsustainable in law. 11. In the light of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as also the ratio laid down in Rafiq Masih (supra), Thomas Daniel (supra) as well as Bhagwan Shukla (supra), this Court is of the considered view that the action of the respondents in directing recovery of the alleged excess payment from the petitioner, who had neither misrepresented any fact nor was at fault in the matter of pay fixation, is wholly arbitrary and unsustainable. The record reflects that though a show cause notice was issued on 20.09.2023, the reply submitted by the petitioner on 27.09.2023 was not considered in its proper perspective and the impugned recovery order came to be passed mechanically on the very same day, thereby rendering the entire process a mere formality and violative of the principles of natural justice. 12. Further, the impugned recovery pertains to the period commencing from 01.07.2010, whereas the petitioner had already retired on 31.03.2024. Thus, the proposed recovery not only relates to a period exceeding thirteen years but is also sought to be enforced at the verge of retirement, which is impermissible in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (supra), where it has been explicitly held that recovery of 9 excess payment cannot be made (i) from employees who are due to retire within one year, or (ii) in respect of payments made more than five years earlier. 13. Considering the above legal position and the factual matrix of the present case, this Court finds that the proceeding initiated for recovery of the alleged excess payment from the petitioner is bad in law and contrary to the settled principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the impugned recovery order dated 27.09.2023 issued by respondent No.5 is hereby quashed and set aside. 14. The respondents are directed to refund the amount, if any, already recovered from the petitioner pursuant to the impugned recovery order, amounting to Rs.4,25,586/-, within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 15. The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 16. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh