1 2025:CGHC:34861 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1320 of 2021 1 - Lakhanlal Kosariya S/o Late Shri Kalanath Kosariya Aged About 64 Years R/o Village Khaira, Post Mudhpar, Tahsil And Police Station Palari, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home / Jail, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Police Station And Post Rakhi, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director General (Dg) Jail Headquarter, Department Of Jail Correctional Services, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Assistant Director Officer Of Divisional, Joint Director, Treasury Account And Pension Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Jail Superintendent Office Of Superintendent District Jail Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri Abhishek Pandey, Advocate along with Ms. Priya Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, Addl. A.G. 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 call for entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. SMT NIRMALA RAO 2 10.2 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned recovery order dated 03/06/2018 issued by respondent No.4 Jail Superintendent District Jail Mahasamund (Annexure P-2) 10.3 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to refund the deducted amount i.e. 54,179/- to the petitioner which has been deducted by way of recovery order dated 03/06/2018. 10.4 That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to give suitable compensation to the petitioner for mental harassment and agony.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner retired from the post of the Head Warden, District Jail, Mahasamund, on 31.3.2018. He would contend that after retirement, an order of recovery amounting to Rs. 54,179/- was issued on 3.6.2018 by respondent No.4/ Jail Superintendent, Mahasamund. He would further contend that the pay scale of the petitioner was wrongly fixed by the department itself, and it continued from July 2011 to March, 2018. The petitioner retired on 31.3.2018, and the order of recovery was issued thereafter. He would also contend that there was no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner; the petitioner was a Class-III employee, and the mistake was detected by the department after more than five years. The issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, (2015) 4 SCC 334 and Jogeswar Sahoo and Ors. vs. The District Judge, Cuttack and Ors., arising out of SLP(C) No. 5918 of 2024. He would pray to allow this petition. 3 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that an undertaking was given by the petitioner, and the excess payment made to the petitioner has already been recovered. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 5. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner was a Class-III employee and that there was no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner; the order of recovery has been passed after retirement, and the mistake was detected by the department after five years, in my opinion, the order of recovery is hereby quashed applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra) and Jogeshwar Sahoo (supra). The respondent authorities are directed to refund the amount to the petitioner along with interest @ 6% per annum. Any undertaking given by the petitioner shall not be binding, as there is no such provision in the Chhattisgarh Pay Revision Rules, 2009 and 2017. 6. With the aforesaid observation(s), this petition is disposed of. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi