1 2026:CGHC:19466 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7044 of 2021 1 - Chitrarekha Ram Thakur S/o Late Shri Ram Dayal Thakur Aged About 51 Years Presently Working As Lecturer Government Boys Higher Secondary School Bemetara , Resident Of Krishna Vihar, Bemetara , District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department , Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya , Atal Nagar , New Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Joint Director Directorate Of Public Instruction , Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar , New Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Assistant Director Treasury And Accounts, Division Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 4 - Principal / Drawing Disbursement Officer Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Bemetara , District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 7045 of 2021 1 - Thakur Das Jangde S/o Shri Narayan Das Aged About 54 Years Presently Working As Lecturer, Government Boys Higher Secondary School Bemetara , Resident Of Ward No. 21, Kurmipara Bemetara District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) NIRMALA RAO 2 Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department , Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya , Atal Nagar , New Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Joint Director Directorate Of Public Instruction , Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar , New Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Assistant Director Treasury And Accounts, Division Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 4 - Principal / Drawing Disbursement Officer Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Bemetara , District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 7113 of 2021 1 - Smt. Chitrarekha Dounde W/o Lt. Shri Dashru Ram Dounde, Aged About 50 Years Resident Of Village Jewri, Post- Bijabhat, Block- Bemetara, District- Bemetara ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District- Raipur(C.G.) 2 - Joint Director, Directorate Of Public Instruction, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District- Raipur(C.G.) 3 - Assistant Director, Treasury And Accournts, Division Durg, District Durg (C.G.) 4 - Principal/Drawing Disbursement Officer, Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Bemetara, District- Bemetara, (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner/s : Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Senior Advocate alongwith Shri Shashwat Rai, Advocate. For State : Shri Vinay Pandey, Dy. A.G. 3 Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 27.04.2026 1. The petitioners have filed these petitions seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 06/12/2021 of recovery of Rs. 2,32,509/- in WP(S) Nos. 7044 of 2021, Rs.2,27,396/- in WP(S) No.7045 of 2021 & 2,37,382/- in WP(S) No.7113 of 2021 (Annexure P/1). 10.2 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 2. Learned Senior Advocate would submit that the petitioners are Teachers and were extended the benefit of two advance increments vide order dated 5.1.2011. She would submit that subsequently, the Drawing Disbursement Officer of the concerned institution passed orders of recovery against the petitioners. The details are given below in the chart: S. No. Petitioner’s Name Date of Appointment Order for grant of Increment Period of Increment Recovery Amount 1. Chitrarekha Ram Thakur 24.07.1993 5.1.2011 24.7.1993 to 31.10.2021 Rs.2,32,509/ - 2. Thakur Das Jangde 24.07.1993 5.1.2011 24.7.1993 to 31.10.2021 Rs.2,27,396/ - 3. Chitrarekha Dounde Husband of the petitioner was appointed on 13.8.1993 5.1.2011 13.8.1993 to 5.11.2020 Rs.2,37,382/ - 4 3. Learned Senior Advocate would submit that the petitioners acquired B.Ed/D.Ed/ BTI on their own expenses and according to the circular issued by the State Government from time to time, they were extended the benefit of two advance increments. She would submit that there was no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioners. She would contend that the petitioners are Class-II employees and that the mistake of the department was detected after more than five years, therefore, the dispute involved in these petitions is squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that the petitioners were aware of the fact that though they were not entitled to the said benefits, they received the same. He would contend that the department detected the mistake and immediately issued the orders of recovery. He would submit that these petitions deserve to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 6. Taking into consideration the fact that the benefit was granted in the year 2011 and the mistake was detected by the department after 10 years, in the year 2021 and thereafter, the impugned orders were passed. Though the petitioners are Class-II employees, it would be harsh on their part to refund the recovery amount after 10 years. 5 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) observed thus:- “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.” 8. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the orders of recovery passed in all the three petitions are hereby quashed. The amount, if any, recovered from the petitioners shall be refunded forthwith. 9. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), the instant petitions stand finally disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi