1 2025:CGHC:12657 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 779 of 2025 1 - Smt. Jaiwanti William W/o Arvind William Aged About 63 Years Retired As Nursing Sister, R/o Near Oxford Public School, Pendraroad, District Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi (Chhattisgarh) 495- 117 ...Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 – Director, Directorate of Health And Family Welfare, Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Chief Medical And Health Officer District Gaurela-Pendra- Marwahi, (Chhattisgarh) 495-117 4 - Block Medical Officer Community Health Center Pendra, Block- Pendra, District Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, (C.G.) 495-117 5 - Joint Director Office of Treasury Accounts And Pension- Division Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495-001 6 - Assistant Director Office of Treasury Accounts And Pension- Division Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, (C.G.) 495-001 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anshuman Shrivastava, Advocate. AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.03.18 18:31:30 +0530 2 For Respondents/State : Mr. Ajit Singh, G.A. Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 17/03/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction towards the respondent to ensure the compliance of order dated 15/09/2023 Annexure P-3 issued by the Department of Health and Family Welfare and for quashment of Annexure P-1 dated 20/05/2024, by which, the respondent No.4 has recovered Rs.4,83,224/-. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as a Staff Nurse on 01/01/1990 and promoted as Nursing Sister in the year 2022 and retired on 31/10/2023. In the year 1996, three annual increment were granted to the petitioner w.e.f. 02/01/1990 and the said order was never recalled or withdrawn by the authority till her retirement. Even on 15/09/2023, the State of Chhattisgarh has directed the Public Health and Family Welfare Department not to recover the benefit of three annual increment granted to the Staff Nurse and also directed to return back the recovered amount, if any, which has been done prior to issuance of the such order/communication dated 15/09/2023, however, in spite of the said communication, the amount of Rs. 4,83,224/- has been recovered from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the 3 petitioner further submits that the recovery cannot be sustainable in the eye of law. He referred the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab & Others Vs. Rafiq Masih(White Washer) & Others1, which is reproduced as under:- “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 1 2015 (4) SCC 334 4 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.” 3. Learned counsel for the State submits that as excess payment has been made to the petitioner, the same has been directed to be recovered is just and proper and there is no illegality in the order passed by the respondents. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings as well as the circular dated 15/09/2023. 5. It appears from the circular dated 15/09/2023 that the State Government has directed not to recover the benefit of increment which has already been granted to the Staff Nurse and if any amount has been recovered, the same be returned back to the such Staff Nurse. Even, the increment which has been given to the petitioner was in the year 1996 and the same was w.e.f. 02/01/1990 and till the retirement of the petitioner, the said order has not been recalled or withdrawn by the State Government. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts as well as the guidelines framed 5 by the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (supra), the impugned order of recovery dated 20/05/2024 (Annexure P-1) is bad in law and accordingly the same is hereby quashed as far as the petitioner is concerned. The respondents are directed to return the amount which has been recovered from the petitioner within a period of 30 days with interest of 6% p.a. 7. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed to the above extent. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Amardeep