1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5488 of 2017 1 - Jeevrakhan Prasad Pandey S/o Late Shri Bhangi Prasad Pandey Aged About 71 Years R/o Subhash Nagar, Kasaridih, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh 2 - Director, Directorate Fund, Account And Pension, Chhattisgarh Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Director, Fund, Account And Pension Durg Division District Durg Chhattisgarh , District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Block Education Officer, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh , District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Abhinav Tiwari, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate For State : Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 20.06.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record pertaining to the case of petitioner from the respondent authorities. 10.2) That, the Hon'ble Court by issuing appropriate writ quash the impugned recovery order dated 18.09.2017 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent no. 4. REKHA SINGH Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH -2- 10.3) Any other relief or relief (s) which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 2. Mr. Tiwari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that an order of recovery has been passed against the petitioner by the Block Education Officer, Durg (C.G.) on 18.09.2017 after retirement. He would further submit that the excess payment was made in the salary of the petitioner, while he was in service and the order has been passed after retirement. He would also submit that the case of the petitioner is covered with 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, Mr. Bajpayee, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Tiwari. He would submit that the order dated 18.09.2017 is an intimation and no specific order with regard to recovery has been passed thus, the present petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 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 3 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 submissions made by the respective advocates, this petition is disposed of reserving liberty in favor of the petitioner to make a representation before respondent No.4/Block Education Officer along with a copy of the judgment passed in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra) elaborating available grounds. If such a representation is made, respondent No.4/Block Education Officer is directed to decide the representation expeditiously preferably within a period of 90 days from today strictly in accordance with the law. 7. With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha