1 2026:CGHC:19343 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5841 of 2022 * - Baldau Prasad Chandrakar S/o Late Shri G.R. Chandrakar Aged About 53 Years Sub Police Station Smariti Nagar, Durg, Police Station Supela, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Mantralya, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Superintendent Of Police Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Pillai, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 27/04/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 To call for entire records from respondents pertaining to the case for kind perusal of the Hon’ble High Court. 10.2 To set aside the impugned order dated 05.05.2022 (Annexure P/1) holding recovery impermissible. 10.3 To set aside the impugned order dated 20.07.2022 (Annexure P/3) holding recovery impressible. 10.4 To direct respondents to grant all consequential benefits and to refund any amount recovered from petitioner on account of excess payment made to him alongwith 10% per annum interest. Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.04.28 18:35:09 +0530 2 10.5 To grant any other relief deemed fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Mr. Sunil Pillai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the pay scale of the petitioner, who is posted as Sub Inspector in the Police Department, was wrongly fixed by the Department and he had been paid excess payment since month of July 2005 till 31st December, 2021. He would contend that the Superintendent of Police passed an order of recovery on 05.05.2022 to the tune of Rs.2,84,498/- in 28 installments and said order was modified vide order dated 20.07.2022, whereby installment of Rs.10,000/- was reduced to Rs.5,000/- per month. He would contend that there was no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner and the mistake of the department was detected after long 16 years. He would further contend that the petitioner is Class-III employee and it would be iniquitous on his part to refund the said amount. He would submit that the case of the petitioner is covered with the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334. 3. Mr. Abhishek Singh, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents would oppose. He would submit that due to mistake the pay scale of the petitioner was fixed at higher side which continued for considerable period and when the department detected it, the order of recovery was issued. He would contend that the department has taken decision to recover the amount in installments. He would submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 3 5. Admittedly, the pay scale of the petitioner was fixed at higher side by department which continued from July 2005 till 31st December 2021. The order of recovery was passed by the Superintendent of Police on 05.05.2022 and said order was modified vide order dated 20.07.2022, whereby the amount of installment was reduced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.5,000/- whereas the total amount of recovery remained same. It is nowhere stated in the return that there was any misrepresentation or fraud play on the part of the petitioner. It is also not disputed that the petitioner is a Class-III employee and the mistake was detected by the department after long 16 years. 6. In the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para-10 which reads as under:- “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.” 4 7. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts and the law laid down in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra), the orders of recovery dated 05.05.2022 (Annexure P-1) and 20.07.2022 (Annexure P-3) are hereby quashed. The respondent authorities shall refund the amount recovered from the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, and the amount shall carry interest @ 6 % per annum from date of recovery till its refund. 8. Consequently, the petition is allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti