1 2026:CGHC:2046 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4283 of 2022 1 - Waris Ali S/o Sayed Hamid Ali Aged About 64 Years R/o D/111, Ward No. 02, Near Second Pani Tanki Yadunandan Nagar Tifra District Bilaspur Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Transport Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Pin-492001 2 - The Regional Transport Officer, Regional Transport Office Ambikapur District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation, Through Managing Director Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation (Transport Section), 2nd Floor Chhattisgarh State Skill Development Building Old Police Headquarters Premises Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh-Pin-492001 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Dheeredra Pandey, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Abhishek Singh, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No.3 : Shri Siddharth Sharma, Adv. on behalf of Shri Suyash Dhar Badgaiyan, Advocate ({Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput}) Order on Board 13/01/2026 Following relief has been claimed in this petition - i) That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records 2 of the case. ii) That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ for directing the respondents to immediately release the deducted gratuity/earned leave allowance amount of Rs.72,181/- with interest. iii. Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner. iv. That, any other relief, which the petitioner is entitled and this Hon’ble Court deems it fit may kindly be granted to the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as Conductor in the M.P. State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘MPSRTC’) in the year 1986. After re-organisation of the State of M.P., MPSRTC was dissolved and assets and liabilities were apportioned between the successor State of Madhya Pradesh and State of Chhattisgarh. The services of the petitioner were placed under disposal of Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation (for short ‘CIDC’) / respondent No.3. Thereafter, the petitioner was sent on deputation to the Transport Department, Regional Office, Ambikapur on the post of Assistant Grade-III. The petitioner, who is a class-III employee was retired on 31/12/2020 from the post of Assistant Grade-III on attaining the age of superannuation. While settling the ritiral dues, respondent No.3 found that excess payment of Rs.72,181/- was made to the petitioner on account of wrong fixation of pay scale from the year 2012. The said amount was recovered from the admissible gratuity of the petitioner i.e. Rs.3,56,608/- and the petitioner was paid only Rs.2,84,427/-. He submits that the petitioner is a class-III employee and recovery has been made after his retirement. The said recovery cannot sustain in the light of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and ors etc. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc., (2015) 4 SCC 334. The judgment of Rafiq Masih (supra) has been subsequently followed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Thomas Daniel vs. State of Kerala and others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine 536 and Jogeswar Sahoo & ors. vs. The District Judge, Cuttack & ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 724. Thus, he submits that the respondent No.3 may be directed to refund the amount of Rs.72,181/- to the petitioner. 3. Opposing the above submission, learned counsel for the respondent submits that excess payment was made to the petitioner on account of wrong fixation of 3 pay scale from the month of April, 2012 till his retirement. Thus, recovery order was made. He submits that the petitioner has given no objection certificate and has given undertaking for recovery of any excess payment. Therefore, there is no merit in this case and is liable to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The petitioner is a class-III employee which is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that excess payment was paid to the petitioner from the month of April, 2012 which was not on account of any misrepresentation or fraud played by the petitioner. The issue involved in this case is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) wherein the Supreme Court has laid down certain situations wherein it has been categorically held that it would be impressible under law for the employer to make recovery. The situations as envisaged in the said judgment are as under: “(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.” 6. The judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) has also been followed with approval in the case of Thomas Daniel (supra) and Jogeswar Sahoo (supra). Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the respondents were not justified in making recovery from the gratuity amount of the petitioner. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. The amount so recovered is directed to be refunded back to the petitioner within a period of 60 days from 4 the date of receipt of copy of this order. No order as to costs. Sd/- ({Sachin Singh Rajput}) JUDGE Deepti DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Digitally signed by DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Date: 2026.01.15 16:57:21 +0530