1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1319 of 2022  Smt. Munni Rumsa W/o Abdul Mosin, Aged About 63 Years Retired As Assistant Grade- Ii, R/o Old Meena Bazar, Vishnunagar, Lav Singh Gali, Kududand Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The Collector, Bilaspur, Collector Office, Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3. Tahsildar Bilaspur, Tahsil Office, Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4. Joint Director, Office Of Treasury Accounts And Pension- Division Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Richa Dwivedi, Advocate For State : Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 11-09-2025 1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:- 10.1To pass suitable Directions/Writ/Order and quash/set-aside order dated 08.02.2022 Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.09.12 14:06:14 +0530 2 issued by Respondent No. 3 wherein payment already made to the petitioner is been directed to be recovered after retirement (Annexure P-1); 10.2 To grant any other relief(s)/order(s)/ direction(s) in favour of petitioner, which the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was holding the post of Assistant Grade–II under respondent- department and she stood retired from services on 30.09.2021. She further submits that on 08.02.2022, order of recovery was issued against petitioner on the ground that petitioner has been paid excess amount from 01.04.2006 to 30.06.2008 and from 01.01.2016 to 30.09.2021 to the tune of Rs. 40,910/- though she was not authorized for such benefit. She contends that petitioner is a class-III employee and after more than 15 years, mistake was deducted by the respondent-department and thereafter, order of recovery has been issued. She 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 State counsel submits that due to mistake, excess payment has been made to the petitioner and when this mistake came to 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. 1. (2015) 4 SCC 334 3 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) 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 retired class-III employee and there was no misrepresentation on the part of petitioner and order of recovery has been issued after more than 15 years. 4 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 08.02.2022 is hereby set-aside and it is directed that the recovery, if any, made from the petitioner shall be refunded back forthwith. 8) Accordingly, this petition stands allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a