1 2026:CGHC:19935 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1901 of 2025 1 - Kartik Ram Sahu S/o Ghasiya Sahu Aged About 80 Years R/o Ward No. 13, Kodamudpara, Sankara, P.O. Sankra, Sub District Nagri, District Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Forest And Climate Change, Aranya Bhawan, North Block, Sector-19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Bank Of Baroda Through Branch Manager, Nagri Sihawa Branch, Main Road Nagri, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 493778 ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Vaibhav P Shukla, Advocate For Respondents-State : Ms. Sakshi Bajpai, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Ankit Singhal, Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 29/04 /2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set-aside the impugned order of recovery dated 24.12.2024 issued by Bank of Baroda. 10.2 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to return the amount recovered from the petitioner with interest. 10.3 Cost of the present petitioner may also be awarded. 2 10.4 Pass any other further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner stood retired from service on 31.05.2004. After retirement from service, petitioner is being paid pension initially from Dena Bank. However, subsequently, Dena Bank in which, the petitioner was having the bank account was merged with Bank of Baroda and at that relevant point of time, due to some typographical error committed by the employees of bank, date of birth of the petitioner has been mentioned wrongly in the bank details of the petitioner and for that reason he has been paid excess amount. 3. He submits that that the excess payment if any, made to the petitioner is not on account of his misrepresentation or playing fraud with the authorities, but it is a mistake on the part of the bank employees and therefore, recovery from the retired employee aged about 80 years may not be permissible. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 submits that he is not disputing the submission made by the counsel for petitioner with regard to recording of incorrect date of birth of the petitioner by the bank employees. He however, submits that payment which is made in excess to he petitioner is a public money. He also submits that the excess payment is made due to clerical error as mentioned in the return filed, supported with an affidavit of the bank officials. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 3 6. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner is aged about 80 years and is wholly dependent on the amount received by him through pension. He has to make out all his expenses from the small amount of pension. From the arguments raised by the respective respondents, it is not appearing that the excess payment made towards the pension is made to the petitioner is on account of some misrepresentation or fraud played by the petitioner upon the bank, but the excess payment is made on account of clerical error committed by the bank employees. In the facts of the case, recovery from the petitioner would be harsh upon him. 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (Supra) while considering the issue with regard to recovery from the employees as also, the retired employees 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 hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service). (ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from the 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.” 4 8. In the recent decision in case of Thomas Daniel Thomas Daniel Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. (2022 SCC OnLine SC 536), Hon’ble Supreme Court considering the decision in case of Rafiq Masih (supra) has allowed the petition filed by the employee therein and observed thus: “(9) This Court in a catena of decisions has consistently held that if the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud of the employee or 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, such excess payment of emoluments or allowances are not recoverable. This relief against the recovery is granted not because of any right of the employees but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to provide relief to the employees from the hardship that will be caused if the recovery is ordered. This Court has further held that if in a given case, it is proved that an employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, the courts may on the facts and circumstances of any particular case order for recovery of amount paid in excess. (11). In Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) v. Government of India and others, (2006) 11 SCC 709 this Court considered an identical question as under: ‘27. x x x x x 28. x x x x x 29. On the same principle, pensioners can also seek a direction that wrong payments should not be recovered, as pensioners are in a more disadvantageous position when compared to in- service employees. Any attempt to recover excess wrong payment would cause undue hardship to them. The petitioners are not guilty of any misrepresentation or fraud in regard to the excess payment. NPA was added to minimum pay, for purposes of stepping up, due to a wrong understanding by the implementing departments. We are therefore of the view that the respondents shall not recover any excess payments made towards pension in pursuance of the circular 5 dated 7-6-1999 till the issue of the clarificatory circular dated 11-9-2001. Insofar as any excess payment made after the circular dated 11-9-2001, obviously the Union of India will be entitled to recover the excess as the validity of the said circular has been upheld and as pensioners have been put on notice in regard to the wrong calculations earlier made.’ (12). In Syed Abdul Qadir and Others v. State of Bihar and Others, (2009) 3 SCC 475 excess payment was sought to be recovered which was made to the appellants-teachers on account of mistake and wrong interpretation of prevailing Bihar Nationalised Secondary School (Service Conditions) Rules, 1983. The appellants therein contended that even if it were to be held that the appellants were not entitled to the benefit of additional increment on promotion, the excess amount should not be recovered from them, it having been paid without any misrepresentation or fraud on their part. The Court held that the appellants cannot be held responsible in such a situation and recovery of the excess payment should not be ordered, especially when the employee has subsequently retired. The court observed that in general parlance, recovery is prohibited by courts where there exists no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee and when the excess payment has been made by applying a wrong interpretation/ understanding of a Rule or Order. It was held thus: “59. Undoubtedly, the excess amount that has been paid to the appellant teachers was not because of 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 appellant 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 appellant 6 teachers, we are of the view that no recovery of the amount that has been paid in excess to the appellant teachers should be made.” (13). In State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334 wherein this court examined the validity of an order passed by the State to recover the monetary gains wrongly extended to the beneficiaries employees in excess of their entitlements without any fault or misrepresentation at the behest of the recipient. This Court considered situations of hardship caused to an employee, if recovery is directed to reimburse the employer and disallowed the same, exempting the beneficiary employees from such recovery. (14). x x x x x (15). Having regard to the above, we are of the view that an attempt to recover the said increments after passage of ten years of his retirement is unjustified.” 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court, recently in the case of Jogeswar Sahoo & Ors. Vs. District Judge, Cuttack & Ors. reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 724 while reitrating the decisions in the case of Rafiq Mash (Supra) has held as under:- “13. In State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) wherein this court examined the validity of an order passed by the State to recover the monetary gains wrongly extended to the beneficiary employees in excess of their entitlements without any fault or misrepresentation at the behest of the recipient. This Court considered situations of hardship caused to an employee, if recovery is directed to reimburse the employer and disallowed the same, exempting the beneficiary employees from such recovery. It was held thus: “8. As between two parties, if a determination is rendered in favour of the party, which is the weaker of the two, without any serious detriment to the other (which is truly a welfare State), the issue resolved would be in consonance with the concept of justice, which is assured to the citizens of India, even in the Preamble of the Constitution of India. The right to recover being pursued by the employer, will have to 7 be compared, with the effect of the recovery on the employee concerned. If the effect of the recovery from the employee concerned would be, more unfair, more wrongful, more improper, and more unwarranted, than the corresponding right of the employer to recover the amount, then it would be iniquitous and arbitrary, to effect the recovery. In such a situation, the employee's right would outbalance, and therefore eclipse, the right of the employer to recover. xxxxxxxxx 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 hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service). (ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from the 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.” 10.In the aforementioned facts of the case and the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Spureme Court, in the opinion of this Court, recovery as sought for by the petitioner vide impugned recovery letter dated 8 24.12.2024 (Annexure P/1) is not sustainable. Accordingly, it is quashed. The Respondents are directed that if any amount is recovered from the petitioner shall be returned back to him within a period of 02 months from the date of receipt of the order. If the amount so recovered is not returned as observed above, it shall carry interest @ 8% simple interest from the date of order till its realization. 11. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands allowed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY