1 2025:CGHC:55486 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9241 of 2023 1 - Sunita Dhruwe W/o Late D.P. Dhruwe Aged About 47 Years R/o Raj Kishor Nagar, Plot No.430/b Phase 2 District Bilaspur (C.G.) Presently Posted As Lecturer At Govt. High School Bijaur. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Secretary Education Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - District Education Officer District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Block Education Officer Bilha, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Principal Govt. High School Bijaur Block Bilha, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) For Petitioner : Mr. Anuj Ahuja, Advocate For State : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Govt. Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 13/11/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the recovery orders issued by the respondent authorities for an excess increment mistakenly added to her salary in 2014 seeking following reliefs : “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for records. Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash letter/order to 27-10-23 (ANNEXURE-P1) in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent not to take any coercive steps pertaining to the recovery of the amount paid in excess. 10.4 Any other relief deems fit and proper looking to facts and circumstance may also be granted in favour of petitioner along with cost.” 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Siksha Karmi Grade-2 on 21.06.2005. She was subsequently working diligently and faithfully under the respondent authorities. On 13.02.2014, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Lecturer (Economics). After her promotion, her pay scale was revised, and the respondent authorities fixed her pay scale at Rs. 10,230/- + Rs. 4,300/-. Furthermore, on 30.06.2014, an additional increment was added to her salary. In 2018, the seniority of petitioner was recognized in the Education Department, and she continued her employment as a Lecturer, posted in a school. However, on 27.10.2023, she received a recovery order stating that an excess increment had been added to her pay during the revision of her pay scale. According to the recovery order, the excess payments for the periods from 01.07.2014 to 30.06.2018 , Rs. 49,882 and from 01.07.2018 to 31.10.2023, Rs. 1,06,110 were to be recovered. The petitioner was directed to deposit these amounts and submit a consent letter for monthly recovery from her salary. The petitioner, who is a widow and has two children to support, was shocked and distressed upon receiving this recovery notice. Upon verification, she discovered that the excess payments were due to a mistake in the pay fixation process by the respondent authorities, and not because of any misrepresentation or fraud on her part. The petitioner was unaware that she had been paid an excess amount and had no role in the error. On 02.11.2023, the petitioner submitted a representation to the principal requesting that the recovery not be made. 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the recovery order dated 27.10.2023 is inherently flawed. The petitioner has been receiving her salary based on the revised pay scale for the past nine years without any fault on her part. The recovery of excess payments at this stage, after such a significant delay, is both legally unjust and unfair. It is well-established that recovery of excess payments should not be made unless there is clear evidence of misrepresentation, fraud, or willful misconduct on the part of the employee, which is absent in the present case. The petitioner is a single mother and widow, with the sole responsibility of raising two children. She has been using her salary, including the excess payments, in good faith and without knowledge of the error. For the past nine years, she has relied on this income for the survival of her family. The sudden imposition of a recovery order would cause extreme financial hardship to the petitioner and her family, potentially disrupting their livelihood and future prospects. The petitioner is facing severe difficulties in managing day-to-day expenses, and the recovery would further exacerbate her already challenging circumstances. The counsel submits that forcing the petitioner to repay the excess salary would be unjust and contrary to the principles of fairness and natural justice. The excess payment made to the petitioner was due to a mistake in the pay fixation process carried out by the respondent authorities. The error in fixing her pay scale and granting an extra increment on 03.06.2014 was purely the result of negligence, error, and carelessness on the part of the respondents. Importantly, the petitioner had no role in the pay fixation process and was completely unaware that an excess amount had been paid to her. She did not misrepresent any facts nor did she engage in any fraudulent activity to benefit from the extra increment. The petitioner acted in good faith, believing that her salary was correct. In light of the above submissions, it is prayed that this Court exercise its discretion to quash and set aside the recovery order dated 27.10.2023. 4 4. Learned State Counsel submits that the recovery of excess payments made to the petitioner is justified, as the error in the pay fixation was discovered after a thorough review of records. The petitioner, despite receiving the benefit of the excess payments for several years, should not be allowed to retain such amounts that were erroneously disbursed. The recovery is in accordance with the rules and is necessary to correct the mistake made by the respondent authorities. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the documents enclosed along with the petition. 6. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the recovery order dated 27.10.2023 issued by the respondent authorities, which mandates the recovery of excess payments made to her over the course of nine years. The petitioner claims that the excess payments were due to a mistake in the pay fixation process carried out by the respondents and that she had no knowledge or involvement in the error. Furthermore, the petitioner argues that the recovery order is unjust, particularly considering the financial hardship it would cause her and her family, and that there is no basis for recovery under the law, as she did not misrepresent any facts nor engage in fraudulent conduct. 7. There is no allegation or evidence that the petitioner misrepresented any facts or engaged in fraud. The error in her pay fixation was entirely the responsibility of the respondent authorities, who added the excess increment due to a clerical mistake. Therefore, the recovery of such excess amounts, without fault or misconduct on the part of petitioner, is not legally justified. The petitioner is a widow and the sole caregiver of two minor children, and has been depending on her salary for the welfare and survival of her family. For nearly nine years, she has been using the salary she received, including the excess amounts, in good faith. The sudden imposition of a recovery order, after such a long period, would cause irreparable hardship to the 5 petitioner and her family. The recovery could severely disrupt her financial stability, which would be grossly unjust and unreasonable, especially when the excess payments were made due to the respondents' error and not any fault on her part. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner cannot be penalized for an administrative error that was not of her making. The law does not permit recovery from an employee who has acted in good faith and had no knowledge of the error. 8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Ors., reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 while considering the recovery of excess payment made to the employees observed thus “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 herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, 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.” 6 9. In the above judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that recovery from the employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service) is impermissible in law. 10. Relying upon the decision in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Thomas Daniel Vs. State of Kerala & Ors., reported in (2022) SCC OnLine SC 536 has further held that recovery from the employees after long time to be unjustified. 11. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the recovery order dated 27.10.2023 is unjust and unfair. The excess payments made to the petitioner were the result of a mistake in the pay fixation process, and the petitioner had no knowledge of or involvement in the error. The petitioner has acted in good faith, and there is no evidence to suggest any misconduct or misrepresentation on her part. Moreover, the recovery of the excess amounts would cause undue hardship to the petitioner and her family, who have relied on this income for their livelihood over the past nine years. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. 13. The recovery order dated 27.10.2023 (ANNEXURE P-1) is hereby quashed. The respondents are restrained from taking any coercive action for the recovery of the excess amounts paid to the petitioner. The respondents are further directed not to recover any amount from the salary of petitioner. No recovery shall be made from the petitioner, given the facts and circumstances of the case. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna Judge