1 2025:CGHC:3604 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1285 of 2018 1 - Bajrang Prasad Kaiwart S/o Shri Chhedu Ram Kaiwart , Aged About 59 Years Working As Upper Division Teacher At Government Girls Middle School Chhuri , Block Katghora District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Education Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Joint Director, Treasury And Pension Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 3 - Principal At Government , Girls Middle School Chhuri Block Katghora District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate For State : Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 21.01.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the endorsement of recovery in the service book and restrain the respondent from reducing the pay and to -2- refund the recovered amount with 18% interest, in the interest of justice. (ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case including cost of the petition, may also be granted, in the interest of justice. 2. Mr. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that at the relevant time, the petitioner was working in the post of Upper Division Teacher at Government Girls Middle School Chhuri, Block Katghora, District Korba (C.G.). He would further submit that in the service book of the petitioner, the Joint Director, Treasury and Pension, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) issued a direction for recovery of excess payment. He would contend that the salary of the petitioner was wrongly fixed by the department from 01.07.2009 and it continued till the year 2017. He would further contend that the authority concerned has not given any details with regard to excess payment. He would state that the petitioner is a Class-III employee and according to the law laid down 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, after a lapse of five years, the order of recovery cannot be passed. Thus, he would pray to quash the entry made in the service book of the petitioner by respondent No.2. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Agrawal, the learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Sharma. He would submit that the petitioner has filed this petition against an entry made in the service book of the petitioner 3 by respondent No.2. He would further submit that there is no specific order with regard to recovery. He would contend that if the petitioner moves a representation before respondent No.2 as well as before the District Education Officer of the concerned district, an appropriate decision shall be taken by the authority concerned strictly in accordance with law. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents. 5. In the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court 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 such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.” 6. Taking into consideration the fact that no specific order has been issued by any of the authorities with regard to recovery and the petition has been filed against an entry made in the service book of the petitioner by respondent No.2, at this juncture, the present -4- petition is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to approach respondent No. 2 as well as the District Education Officer, Korba raising his grievances and in turn, the authority concerned shall decide such representation strictly in accordance with law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra). It is expected that the authority concerned shall decide the representation made by the petitioner preferably within a period of 90 days and for a period of 90 days, the interim relief granted earlier shall continue. 7. With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha