1 2026:CGHC:20077 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4518 of 2021 Rajesh Sharma, S/o Late Shri V.D. Sharma, Aged About 46 Years R/o Sector 10, Street No. 27, House No. 7 A, Police Station Bhilai Nagar, Tehsil And District - Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1- State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Home Affairs, Police Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2- Joint Director, Treasury Accounts And Pension, Durg, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3- The Commandant First B.N., Caf, Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Pragya Pandey, Advocate For State : Mr. Abhyuday Tripathi, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 30/04/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner for it's kind perusal. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned orders dated 2 30.07.2021 and 30/31.07.2021 passed by respondent no. 3. 10.3 Grant any other relief(s)/ order(s)/ direction(s) in favour of petitioners, which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. 10.4 Cost of the petition.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was posted as Assistant Sub- Inspector (A) under the respondents. She would further submit that in the year 2015, services of the petitioner were regularized. She would contend that the petitioner was extended revised pay scale on the higher side by the department, and this mistake continued from 01.07.2015 till 01.07.2021, thereafter, the order of recovery to the tune of 75,270/- was issued by respondent No. 3 on 30.07.2021. ₹ She would submit that there was no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner; the pay scale was revised by the department itself; the petitioner is a Class-III employee, and the mistake was detected by the department after 6 years; thus, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab and Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Ors.,(2015) 4 SCC 334. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that due to a mistake, the pay scale of the petitioner was fixed on the higher side, and when the department detected this error, an order of recovery was passed. He would further submit that though the petitioner did not conceal the fact, but he also did not bring it to the notice of the department; thus there is no infirmity in the order impugned and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on file. 3 5. Admittedly, the pay scale of the petitioner was revised by the department on the higher side on 01.07.2015, which continued till 01.07.2021; thereafter, order of recovery to the tune of 75,270/- was ₹ passed by respondent No. 3 on 30/31.07.2021. The petitioner is a Class- III employee; the department detected the mistake after 6 years, and there was no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner and it would be iniquitous for the petitioner to refund the said amount. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra) has summarized the permissible exceptions to recovery in paragraph 18, and has clearly held that recovery in the following cases would be impermissible in law:- “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 herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, 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 4 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.” 7. In the present case, the petitioner belongs to Class-III service, the alleged excess payment spans over more than 6 years, and there is no allegation of misrepresentation or fraud; therefore, the case of the petitioner squarely falls within clauses (i) and (iii) of the guidelines laid down in Rafiq Masih (supra). Accordingly, the impugned recovery is impermissible under the law. 8. In view of the above discussion, and in light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra), the recovery order dated 30/31.07.2021 passed by respondent No.3 is/are hereby quashed. The recovered amount, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioner forthwith. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim