1 2025:CGHC:41883 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1232 of 2023 1 - Paleshwarpuri Goswami S/o Late Shri Rekhapuri Goswami Aged About 58 Years R/o Jail Line Road, Central Jail Bilaspur, Police Station Civil Line Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home (Jail) Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director General Prisons And Correctional Service Chhattisgarh, Head Quarter Prisons And Correctional Services Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Jail Superintendent Central Jail Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - The Joint Director Fund Account And Pension, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 19/08/2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to this case from possession of the respondents for it's kind perusal; 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ/order/direction and quash/set-aside the letter/order dated 25.01.2023 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondent no.3; 10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is serving as Chief Warder (Mukhya Prahari) and is presently posted at Central Jail, Bilaspur (C.G.). He further submits that vide letter/order dated 25.01.2023, issued by respondent No. 3, an amount of Rs. 1,54,899/- has been shown as excess payment allegedly made to the petitioner, and he has been directed to exercise his option for refund of the said amount either by deduction from salary or by lump sum payment. He further submits that there is no fault on the part of the petitioner in 3 relation to the alleged excess payment, nor has he ever misrepresented any fact or committed fraud to secure the said amount. The petitioner, being a Class-III employee, has been subjected to recovery on account of alleged wrong fixation of pay with effect from 01.07.2009, which pertains to a period of more than 13 years prior to the impugned recovery order. He further submits that the recovery order has been issued without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and as such, the recovery sought to be made is arbitrary, illegal and impermissible in law. He contended that the issue with regard to recovery of the excess payment made to the employees in particular, the Class III and Class IV employees has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Ors. (2015) 4 SCC 334 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the recovery of excess payment made to the Class III and Class IV employee to be impermissible. He also contended that following the decision in the case of Rafiq Masih (Supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Thomas Daniel Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. (2022 SCC OnLine SC 536) has also allowed the Appeal filed by the appellant therein. He further submits that no recovery has been made from the petitioner. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents/State 4 submits that since wrong fixation has been mentioned in the service book as such it is required to be recovered from the petitioner as excessive amount has been paid which is apparent from the fixation of pay scale itself. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (Supra) has observed thus:- “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.” 6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (2009) 3 SCC 475 considering the issued with regard to recovery of excess payment made to the petitioner therein has held as under : “57. This Court, in a catena of decisions, has granted relief against recovery of excess payment of emoluments/allowances if (A) the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, and (b) if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous. 59. Undoubtedly, the excess amount that has been paid to the appellants - teachers was not because of 6 any misrepresentation or fraud on their part and the appellants also had no knowledge that the amount that was being paid to them was more than what they were entitled to. It would not be out of place to mention here that the Finance Department had, in its counter affidavit, admitted that it was a bona fide mistake on their part. The excess payment made was the result of wrong interpretation of the rule that was applicable to them, for which the appellants cannot be held responsible. Rather, the whole confusion was because of inaction, negligence and carelessness of the officials concerned of the Government of Bihar. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-teachers submitted that majority of the beneficiaries have either retired or are on the verge of it. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case at hand and to avoid any hardship to the appellants-teachers, we are of the view that no recovery of the amount that has been paid in excess to the appellants-teachers should be made.” 7. In light of the above authoritative judgments, facts of the present case are to be examined. The alleged excess payment was not made by any 7 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 decision in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra). Therefore, the impugned order dated 25.1.2023 (Annexure P/1) is hereby set aside. 8. With the aforementioned observation, writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat