1 / 6 2026:CGHC:21040 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2366 of 2026 • Gangu Ram Jangde S/o Duwa Ram Jangde Aged About 61 Years R/o House No. 30 Irrigation Colony, Lalpur Behind MMI Hospital Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretory Department Of Home Mahanadi Bhawan Mantranalaya, Naya Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Senior Superintendent Of Police Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3. Joint Director Treasury, Accounts And Pensions, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Barun Kumar Chakrabarty, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Govt. Adv. Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 05/05/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the impugned recovery order dated 08.01.2026 (Annexure P-1) issued by Respondent No. 2/ Senior Superintendent of Police, Dist. Raipur, C.G., by which recovery of amount to the tune of ₹ 6,10,111 has been sought from petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is working on the post of Constable since the date of his initial appointment on 09.01.1991 under respondent-department, which is a Class-III post. Respondent No. 2 has issued impugned order dated 08.01.2026 (Annexure P-1) for recovery of an amount of ₹ 6,10,111 on the ground that excess payment is made to petitioner due to wrong fixation of pay during his service period. It is contention of learned counsel for petitioner that in view of decision of Hon’ble PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 6 Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & ors vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & ors, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 recovery of excess payment from the petitioner/ Class-III employee, in the facts of the case, is not permissible. He also contended that from the face of the order it is not apparent that excess payment is made to petitioner because of his misrepresentation or any fraud played by petitioner to the respondent- department. Recovery of amount if paid in excess cannot be made from him. Therefore, action on the part of respondent-department seeking recovery of amount towards excess payment is per se illegal and arbitrary. He also places reliance upon Thomas Daniel vs. State of Kerala reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 536. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and submits that from the order Annexure P-1 it is apparent that excess payment of ₹ 6,10,111 has been made to petitioner due to wrong fixation of pay during his service period from January 2006 to December 2025 and for which vide impugned order Annexure P-1 consent/ undertaking from petitioner for recovery of excess payment from his retiral dues after his retirement is also asked. He contended that the case of respondent is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal vs. State of Uttrakhand and others reported in (2012) 8 SCC 417, Punjab and Haryana and others vs. Jagdev Singh, reported in (2016) 14 SCC 267, Syed Abdul Qadir vs. State of Bihar and others reported in (2009) 3 SCC 475. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents enclosed along with writ petition. 5. From the arguments which is advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of documents, it is not in dispute that petitioner is holding the post of Constable which is Class-III post, he was paid excess payment due to wrong fixation of pay for the period from January 2006 to 3 / 6 December 2025. It is not the case of respondents that excess payment is made to petitioner due to misrepresentation or suppression of fact or any fraud played by petitioner with respondent-department, which is also not disputed by the State counsel. 6. In case of Rafiq Masih (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court considering the issue of recovery of amount paid in excess has summarized the situations where in certain cases, even recovery from the Class-III and Class-IV employee by the employer would not be permissible in law. Further in the case of Thomas Daniel (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered its earlier decision in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) and set aside the order of recovery from the appellant therein. In Para-18 of the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) it was observed thus:- “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 hereinabove, 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 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 / 6 7. So far as other submission of learned counsel for the State that undertaking/ consent for refund of the excess amount paid to him at the time of fixation of pay is also asked from petitioner vide Annexure P-1, no such document is enclosed along with reply showing any consent given by him. In absence of any such document in this regard, pleading itself will not be sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that petitioner had submitted any undertaking at any point of time for return of the amount, if paid in excess. Asking for submission of consent letter/ undertaking for refund of the amount under the pressure and threat that he may not be paid retiral dues, cannot be overlooked and furthermore, even if some undertaking is given then also it will not be a ground for respondent-department to recover the amount when Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rafiq Masih (supra) in categorical terms has held that recovery of excess amount from Class-III and Class-IV employee is impermissible in law. 8. In case of High Court of Jagdev Singh (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court though had considered the issue with regard to the undertaking, however, Para-10 (i) of the decision in case of Rafiq Masih (supra) has not been overruled or interfered. This aspect is also considered by the Division Bench of this Court in WA No.264/2020 (State of CG vs Labha Ram Dhruv) wherein it was observed thus: “9. In the case at hand, the Revision of Pay Rules, 2009 and 2017 do not make any enabling provision reserving option for the employer to seek refund of the amount paid in excess, by making the employee to furnish an undertaking. Even if we conclude, for the sake of arguments, that even in the absence of enabling provision under the Rules, undertaking given by the employee would operate, the fact remains that against the classes of employees against whom recovery would be impermissible in law, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (Supra), recovery from the employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service) would still be impermissible 5 / 6 in law. Meaning thereby that even when undertaking is submitted by the employee, but he otherwise belongs to Class-III and Class-IV service, and the amount has been paid more than 5 years back, the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (Supra) would still hold the field in favour of such employees, because the judgment in the matter of Rafiq Masih (Supra) has not been overruled, but only clarified, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its later judgment in the matter of Jagdev Singh, Supra” 9. From perusal of the above, it is clear that the recovery from the employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV category (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service) is held to be impermissible in law. Meaning thereby that even if undertaking is submitted by the employee, but he otherwise belongs to Class-III or Class-IV service, recovery of excess amount from him/her is impermissible. 10. The other decisions as relied by learned counsel for the respondent-State is prior to the decision in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) and therefore will not be applicable to the facts of present case. 11. In the case at hand, admittedly, petitioner was holding a post of Class-III in the Department of Home. It is also not the case of respondents that petitioner had received excess payment by practicing fraud or by making misrepresentation. Thus, petitioner could not have been compelled to return the amount which has been paid by the respondents on their own without any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of petitioner. 12. In light of above decisions and in the given facts and circumstances of the case, in the considered opinion of this Court, the respondents cannot be permitted to effect recovery from the petitioner of the amount paid in excess and being so, recovery against petitioner is not sustainable. 13. Consequently, writ petition is allowed and the impugned recovery order Annexure P-1 dated 08.01.2026, as it relates to recovery of amount of 6 / 6 ₹ 6,10,111 from petitioner, is hereby quashed. Respondents are directed to return back the amount, if any, recovered from petitioner or deducted from the retiral dues of petitioner towards recovery of excess payment, within a further period of 04 months from the date of receipt of order passed by this Court, failing which the recovered amount shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of order passed by this Court till its realization. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) pwn JUDGE