1 2025:CGHC:16500 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5370 of 2017 • Rajanti Devi W/o Late Rajesh Singh, Aged About 42 Years Posted As Assistant Sub Inspector (M) At First Battalion, Chhattisgarh Armed Force Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Inspector General Of Police, Chhattisgarh Armed Force, Head Quarter, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 4. Commandant, 3rd Battalion, Chhattisgarh Armed Force, Mahadeoghat, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5. Commandant, First Battalion, Chhattisgarh Armed Force, Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 6. Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Office At Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Topilal Baretha, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 08/04/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside the impugned order dated 03-05-2017 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No. 5, by which without affording opportunity of hearing amount of Rs.1,41,907/- has been directed to be recovered from her salary, which is creating hardship for the petitioner, who is a low paid employee. Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI 2 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 22-03-2017 (Annexure P-4), which has been passed without affording opportunity of hearing, where the pay scale of petitioner has been amended. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to refund the recovered amount from the salary of petitioner and direct to recover the same from the responsible respondent authorities. 10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem-fit and appropriate.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Head Constable (M) on compassionate grounds after the death of her husband. He would contend that respondent No. 5 issued the order of recovery on 03.05.2017 to the tune of Rs.1,41,907/- on the ground that the pay scale of the petitioner was wrongly fixed at a higher side by the department. He would further submit that according to the reply filed by the State, due to a mistake of the dealing clerk, the pay scale of the petitioner was wrongly fixed at a higher side. He would also submit that there was no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner and the higher pay scale was granted by the department to the petitioner from 01.07.2009 and it continued for more than 05 years and the order of recovery has been passed on 03.05.2017 after a lapse of 08 years. Thus, he would pray to quash the order. In support thereof, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others, 2015 AIR SCW 501. 3. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose. He would submit that the excess payment was made to 3 the petitioner due to the wrong fixation of salary and when the department detected this mistake, the order impugned was issued by respondent No. 5. He would also submit that the petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Admittedly, the pay scale of the petitioner was fixed at a higher side by the department itself in the month of July 2009 and it continued till 01.07.2015. The order of recovery has been issued on 03.05.2017. 6. From a perusal of the pleadings made in the writ petition and return, it is apparent that there was no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner; the petitioner is a Class-III employee; the mistake was detected by the department after a lapse of 08 years, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, a good case is made out to quash the order of recovery. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of of Rafiq Masih (supra) while dealing with a similar issue held as under:- “(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 4 such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.” 8. Taking into consideration the facts of the present case and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra), the order dated 03.05.2017 (Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to refund the recovered amount, if any. 9. With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti