1 2025:CGHC:45995 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 997 of 2022  Rajesh Kumar Mishra S/o Chandra Kumar Mishra Aged About 62 Years R/o House No. 136, Bandha Talap Para, Barchha, Mungeli District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary , Home Department , Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. Accountant General Treasury Account And Pension, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. Divisional Joint Director Treasury, Account And Pension Division, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 4. District Accountant Officer Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 5. Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. S.P. Sannat, Advocate For State : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Ashwani Shukla, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 09-09-2025 1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the petitioner from the office of respondent department for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.09.10 18:14:45 +0530 2 pleased to direct the Respondent Authorities to refund the amount deducted from the GPF amount of the petitioner within one month with interest. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deems fit and appropriate.” 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits petitioner is holding the post of Head Constable under respondent-department. He further submits that on 24.08.2021, order of recovery was issued against petitioner on the ground that petitioner has been paid excess amount from 01.01.1986 to 01.01.2021 to the tune of Rs. 68,950/- though he was not entitled. He contends that petitioner is a class-III employee and stood retired from services on 28.02.2021 and after retirement of the petitioner, mistake was detected by the respondent-department and thereafter, order of recovery has been issued. He further contends that issue involved in present case is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others1. 3) On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for respondents would oppose. They submits that due to mistake, excess payment was made to the petitioner and when this mistake came within the knowledge of the department, order of recovery was issued. They further submits there is no infirmity in the order impugned and this petition deserves to be dismissed. 4) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra) 1. (2015) 4 SCC 334 3 observed that:- 10. In State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (Supra) this Court held that while 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). (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. 11. The principle enunciated in Proposition (ii) above cannot apply to a situation such as in the present case. In the present case, the officer to whom the payment was made in the first instance was clearly placed on notice that any payment found to have been made in excess would be required to be refunded. The officer furnished an undertaking while opting for the revised pay scale. He is bound by the undertaking. 6) Admittedly, petitioner is a class-III employee and there was no misrepresentation on the part of petitioner and order of recovery has been issued after his retirement. 7) Taking into consideration the facts of the present case and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra), order of recovery dated 24.08.2021(Annexure P/1) is hereby set-aside and it is 4 directed that the recovery, if any, made shall be refunded forthwith. 8) Accordingly, this petition stands allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant