1 2025:CGHC:41661 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1300 of 2022  Jashwant Singh Kshatri S/o Late Shri Kashi Singh Chhatri Aged About 63 Years Sewaniwrit Upabhiyanta, Lok Nirman Vibhag Ra.Raa Sambhag Bilaspur Niwasi - Mhamaya Park Colony Aajad Chowk Mangala Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Lok Nirmaan Vibhag, Mantralay Mhanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2. Mukhya Abhiyanta National Highway Parichhetra Lok Nirmaan Vibhag Penshan Bada Raipur Distt. - Raipur (C.G.) 3. Karyapalan Abhiyanta Lok Nirmaan Vibhag National Highway Sambhag, Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Sanukt Sanchalak Kosh Lekha Bilaspur Sambhag Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : None For State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 18-08-2025 1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:- 10.1 यह कि, उत्तरवा दीगण किदीशित किय जा वा कि वा य शि अवाध रूप से वासेली गई ! ली र शि 1.19.060.00 / ए ली ख उन्नीसे हजा र से ठ रूपय मय Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.08.19 16:48:30 +0530 2 ब्य जा वा पसे र(। 10.2 यह कि, उत्तरवा दी म * 03 द्वा र जा र वासेली से*बं*ध पत्र परिरशिष्ट प- 01 अवाध / अप स्त / किरस्त किय जा वा। 10.3 यह कि, अन्य अ!तष जा म य न्य य लीय उशित सेमझे उत्तरवा दीगण से य शि दिदीलीवा य जा वा। 2) It is pleaded in the petition that petitioner who was holding the post of Sub-Engineer under respondent-department stood retired on 31.08.2020. It is further pleaded in the petition that vide order dated 18.06.2020 (Annexure P-1), respondent No. 3 has directed recovery of Rs. 1,19,060/- in lieu of excess payment being made to petitioner from 01.07.2016 till 31.05.2020. 3) Learned State counsel submits that due to mistake, excess payment has been made to the petitioner and when this mistake came into knowledge of the department, order of recovery was issued. He further submits there is no infirmity in the order impugned and this petition deserves to be dismissed. 4) Heard. 5) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others1 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. 1. (2015) 4 SCC 334 3 (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. Further, the order of recovery to the tune of Rs. 1,19,060/- has been issued after 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 18.06.2020 is hereby set-aside and it is directed that the recovery, if any, made shall be refunded forthwith. 8) Accordingly, this petition stands allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya