1 2026:CGHC:19325 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2973 of 2022 1 - Rajesh Kumar Sharma S/o Late Shri Kamal Narayan Sharma Aged About 54 Years R/o Kotra Road, Rajeev Nagar, Raigarh, P.S. Kotra Road, Tahsil And Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Its Secretary, Department Of Home/police Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Police Staion And Post Rakhi, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director General Of Police (Dgp) Police Head Quartor (Phq), Block No. 1, Sector-19, P.S. And Post Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Additional Director General Of Police (A-Dgp) Inspector General Of Police (Igp) Intelligence, Police Head Quartor (Phq), Block No. 1, Sector-19, P.S. And Post- Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G) 4 - Inspector General Of Police (Igp) Intelliigence, Police Head Quartor (Phq), Block No 1, Sector- 19, P.S. And Post Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Divisional Joint Director O/o Divisional Joint Director, Treasury Account And Pension, Raipur Division, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 6 - Assistant Inspector General Of Police(A-Igp) Security, Police Head Quartor (Phq), Block No. 1, Sector-19, P.S. And Post Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) NIRMALA RAO 2 For Petitioner : Shri Abhishek Pandey, Advocate alongwith Shri Rishabhdev Sahu, Advocate. For Respondents/ State : Shri Keshav Gupta, G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 27.4.2026 1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:- “(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to produce all the relevant records relating to case of the petitioner before this Hon'ble Court for its kind perusal. (ii) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/quash the impugned recovery order dated 11.06.2018 of Petitioner issued by Respondent No. 3 ADGP, Intelligence, Raipur (Annexure P/1). (iii) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/quash the impugned recovery order dated 22.12.2020 of Petitioner issued by Respondent No. 6 AIGP, Security, Raipur (Annexure P/4). (iv) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/quash the impugned recovery order dated 29.09.2021 of Petitioner issued by Respondent No. 4 IGP, Intelligence, Raipur (Annexure P/6). (v) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to refund the whole deducted amount to the petitioner with interest of 10% which has been deducted on account of above mentioned recovery orders issued against the petitioner. (vi) That this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to direct respondents to give suitable compensation to the petitioner for the mental trauma and agony, harassment and hardships suffered by him as also cost of the litigation.” 3 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that initially, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Platoon Commander and thereafter, was promoted to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. He would contend that the petitioner was extended benefit of one advanced increment vide order dated 15.2.1999 and subsequently, the same benefit was extended vide order dated 14.2.2002. He would submit that there was no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner and the above-stated benefits were extended by the department itself. He would submit that an order of recovery to the tune of Rs.2,23,523/- was issued by the Assistant Inspector General of Police, Security on 22.12.2020 on account of excess payment made to the petitioner. He would submit that the department detected the mistake after 18 years and it would be very difficult for the petitioner to refund the said amount. He would further submit that 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 others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334. 3) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that the petitioner was entitled to one advance increment, which was granted on 15.2.1999 and subsequently, a similar benefit was extended on 14.2.2002. He would contend that 4 though the petitioner was aware of this fact but he did not communicate the department and continued to avail the said benefit till 2020. He would also submit that the petitioner is a Class-II employee and enforcing a repayment of excess amount will not cause significant financial distress or hardship. He submits that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5) A perusal of the documents placed on record would make it clear that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before taking a decision with regard to recovery of Rs.2,23,523/-. It is also not in dispute that there was no representation or fraud play on the part of the petitioner. It is an admitted fact that the mistake was committed by the department and it remained undetected for as long as 18 years. 6) 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. 5 (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.” 7) In the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, it is quite vivid that the department detected its mistake after 18 years, there was no misrepresentation or fraud play on the part of the petitioner and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner; therefore, the law laid down in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra) would attract in toto. 8) For the foregoing discussion and in light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the impugned order of recovery dated 11.6.2018 (Annexure-P/1) so far as it relates to the petitioner, is quashed. 6 9) The respondents are directed to refund the amount, if any, recovered from the petitioner forthwith. 10) With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), the instant petition stands finally disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Nimmi