1 2026:CGHC:20465 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9421 of 2022 Rupendra Kumar Sahu S/o Late Chhedilal Sahu Aged About 41 Years Occupation - Service, Posted As Assistant Grade - 3, Government Higher Secondary School, Seoni, Tahsil Marwahi, District - Gourella- Pendra- Marwahi Chhattisgarh Presently Attached In The Office Of Collectorate Gourella- Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh, R/o H-16, Housing Board Colony, Pendra, District - Gourella-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Commissioner Director Of School Education Indrawati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Collector, Gourella-Pendra-Marwahi District - Gourella-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Joint Director, Education Division Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - District Education Officer Gourella-Pendra-Marwahi, District : Gaurela- Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Principal, Goverment Higher Secondary School, Seoni, Tahsil - Marwahi, District : Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Anu Mishra, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amandeep Singh, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 01/05/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 2 “10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 20/12/2022 passed by the respondent N . . о б 10.2 Any other relief(s)/order(s)/direction(s) in favour of petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. 10.3 Cost of the petition.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that on account of death of the petitioner’s father, the petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds to the post of Assistant Grade-III and was posted at Government Higher Secondary School, Seoni, Tahsil Marwahi, District Gourella-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.). He would contend that the State Government had issued the Executive Directions, 2013 for appointment on compassionate grounds and as per Clause 10 thereof, widows and persons who have completed 45 years of age are exempted from appearing in the skill examination. He would further submit that subsequently, respondent No.2 issued directions dated 23.11.2021 to all the District Education Officers of the State of Chhattisgarh for organizing the skill examination for Assistant Grade-III employees appointed on compassionate grounds and, in pursuance thereof, respondent No.5 issued orders dated 16.12.2021 and 07.02.2022 for conducting the skill examination. Learned counsel would further submit that thereafter respondent No.6 issued the impugned order dated 20.12.2022 imposing recovery of Rs.3,76,825/- upon the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had not passed the skill test and, therefore, was not entitled to increments. He would further contend that the increments were granted by respondent No.1 after due verification and, therefore, without any authority of law, the impugned recovery order has been issued by respondent No.6. 3 3. It is further submitted that the order of recovery is contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334. He would place reliance on paragraph 18 of the said judgment to contend that the recovery in such cases is impermissible under the law. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State/respondents would submit that the recovery order has been issued pursuant to an objection raised by the Treasury Office. It is contended that the payment made to the petitioner was in excess of what he was entitled to and, as such, the recovery order is just and proper. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on file. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a Class-III employee and the payment in question was made continuously for a period of more than five years. The State has not alleged any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case 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. 4 (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.” 8. In the present case, the petitioner belongs to Class-III service, the alleged excess payment spans over more than five 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 State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer). Accordingly, the impugned recovery is impermissible under the law. 9. 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 20.12.2022 (Annexure P/1) is 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