1 2025:CGHC:34858 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1457 of 2021 1 - Purushottam Nath Yogi S/o Shri Tungeshwar Nath Yogi Aged About 62 Years Retd. Upper Division Teacher, Govt. Middle School, Bhuigaon, Block Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) R/o Rahod Nagar, Via Kharoud, House No. 6, Ward No. 11, District Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Accountant General Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Joint Director Treasury, Account And Pension, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - District Education Officer Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 5 - Block Education Officer, Pamgarh, District-Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushawaha, Advocate. For State/Respondents : Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, P.L. SMT NIRMALA RAO 2 For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Ashwani Shukla, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 22.07.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “10.1. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the petition by holding that recovery order Annexure P/2 dated 06.09.2020 issued by respondent no. 5 is illegal, without authority and therefore amount so deposited under protest by challan Annexure P/4 amounting Rs. 2,38,416/- be refunded back to the petitioner as per para 10 with 6% per annum interest and costs as per Annexure P/5. 10.2. Costs of the petition be awarded, 10.3 Any other relief or direction which the Hon’ble Court may deems fit, be also awarded.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that at the relevant time the petitioner was Class-III employee holding the post of Upper Division Teacher from Middle School Bhuigaon, Block Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. He would contend that on 1.7.2020 an order of recovery of Rs.2,38,416/- has been issued by respondent No.5 on the ground that the salary of the petitioner was wrongly fixed in the month of March, 2006 and this mistake continued till June, 2020. He would submit that on that premise respondent No.5 passed the order of recovery. He would contend that in the matter of State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), reported in 2015 AIR SCW 501, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if excess payment is not detected within a period of 5 years then 3 the order of recovery against Class-III employee is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He would pray for quashing of that order. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that due to mistake the pay of the petitioner was wrongly fixed at higher side and when this fact was detected, a prompt decision was taken for recovery. He would submit that respondent No.5 has passed an order of recovery taking into consideration all aspects of the case. He would also submit that an undertaking was also given by the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents available on record. 5. Taking into consideration the fact that the pay of the petitioner was wrongly fixed by the department itself in March, 2006 and continued till June, 2020; that the petitioner is a Class-III government servant, that there was no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner; and that the Chhattisgarh Revision of Pay Rules, 2009 & 2017 contain no provision with regard to undertaking, any such undertaking rendered by the petitioner would not be binding. Therefore, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (supra) will apply in toto. 6. In the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in para-18 as under:- “18. it is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship where payments have mistakenly been made by an employer, in the following situations, a recovery by the employer would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service). 4 (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.” 7. Considering the facts of the present case and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the orders Annexures-P/2 & P/3 issued by the respondent authorities are hereby quashed. If any amount has been recovered from the petitioner, same shall be refunded forthwith. 8. With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi