1 2025:CGHC:5056 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 752 of 2025 1 - Radheshyam Rathore S/o Late Anand Ram Rathore Aged About 64 Years Occupation- Retired Mechanic- Grade 3, R/o House No. 1048, Shiv Mandir Street, Old Kashi Nagar, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Public Health Engineering, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Engineer In Chief Department Of Public Health Engineering, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Post Officer And Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Superintendent Engineer Public Health Engineering Department, Circle Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Division Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.02.11 21:39:29 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Shri Dhani Ram Patel, Advocate For Respondents/State : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 28/01/2025 1. By the instant petition, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records of the case of the state for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned recovery order passed by the R/3 Joint Director Treasuries, Account and Pension, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh and on the basic of the said order the Respondent No. 5 Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Division Korba, has passed an order on 05.08.202021 for recovery of Rs. 83040/- Annexure P/1 and directed to return the same with 12% of interest. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to continue the pay scale granted on 07.07.1998 to the petitioner which is granted as per Rule and Policy. 10.4 Any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who was working under the respondent department, was retired as a Mechanic Grade III on 31.5.2021. After retirement of the petitioner the respondents authorities passed an order for recovery of excess payment amounting to Rs.83,040. He further submits that, while he was in service, from time to time, as per the guidelines of the State Government, the benefit of pay scale including the time pay scale was extended by the respondent authorities in 3 favour of the petitioner. He Further stated that while he was in service, he was extended the benefit of revised pay scale from 7.7.1998 and fixed his pay at Rs.3500-80-4700-100-5200. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner is a low paid class III employee, therefore, as per the well settled principles of law the recovery from the petitioner cannot be made. He also submitted that in similar cases this Court has quashed the recovery order and directed for refund of the amount recovered from the employee vide order dated 2.9.2024 passed in WPS No.556 of 2022 and order dated 22.9.2021 passed in WA No.264 of 2020 and other connected writ appeals. He further submitted that in view of the orders passed by this Court, the petitioner is entitled to get back the deducted amount with interest. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in WPS No. 9716 of 2019 (Shankar Narayan Chakrawarty v. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.) wherein while disposing of the writ petition vide order dated 30/01/2020, this Court passed an order for quashment of recovery order and directed to refund the amount recovered from the employee/petitioner. The petitioner in support of his contention also relied upon the order dated 08/10/2021 passed in WPS No. 5823 of 2014. He submitted that prior to the superannuation of the petitioner the respondent authority has passed the order for recovery of the excess payment seeking consent from the petitioner. For this submission, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Uma Shankar Dwivedi v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. passed by this Court on 23.05.2024 in Writ Petition (S) No. 655 of 2015 and also relied upon the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 03.04.2024 in Writ Petition (S) No.2977 of 2024 (Suyash Kanti Ghosh v. Central Silk Board and others). He further submitted that the ratio laid down in case of State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rafiq Masih (White 4 Washer) & Ors., (2015) 4 SCC 334, clearly postulates the recovery of amount after retirement would be barred. He would further submit that the respondent department/concerned authority may be directed to refund the entire recovered amount with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of its recovery till actual payment made to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the State submits that due to wrong fixation of salary of the petitioner he has got the excess payment, therefore, the recovery order passed by the authority is proper and the excess amount which has been paid to the petitioner has to be recovered. 4. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Rafiq Masih (supra) held 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. 5 (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." 5. In light of the above authoritative judgment, the facts of the present case is to be examined. The petitioner was a Class III employee. The impugned recovery was made from the petitioner prior to his retirement. The alleged excess payment was not made by any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner. In the considered opinion of this Court, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the case of Rafiq Masih (supra). Therefore, in the instant case, the impugned recovery order dated 5.8.2021 (Annexure P1) issued by the respondent authorities for recovery of the excess payment is set aside and the amount which has been recovered as excess payment be refunded to the petitioner within a period of 60 days from the receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, it shall carry simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of this writ petition, i.e., 24.1.2025. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Gopal Singh