2026:CGHC:491 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S) No. 5995 of 2022 Rajendra Kumari Tiwari W/o Badri Prasad Tiwari Aged About 64 Years Ward No. 18, House No. 07, Police Line, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ..... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of Home, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Superintendent of Police Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Director Directorate of Treasury Accounts and Pension, Indravati Bhavan Block 1 First Floor Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Divisional Joint Director Treasury Accounts and Pension Division Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - District Treasury Officer Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. .... Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Animesh Verma, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Rohitashva Singh, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 05.02.2026 1. Following relief has been claimed in this writ petition:- 10.1. It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner for its kind perusal; 10.2. That, that this honorable Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction thereby quashing and setting aside the entire procedure and method adopted by ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2026.02.17 12:15:07 +0530 2 the respondents in illegally deducting the gratuity amount of the petitioner the same being illegal arbitrary and malafide in nature; 10.3. That, that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing the respondents to immediately pay the petitioner an amount of Rs. 4,08,819/- which has been illegally deducted from the gratuity amount of the petitioner and to further pay the interest on the aforesaid illegally deducted amount; 10.4. That this Hon'ble may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order,direction in the nature of mandamus thereby restraining the respondents from taking any action against the petitioner for deduction of any amount in the name of any excess payment, after the return of the illegally deducted amount has been made; 10.5. Any other relief/reliefs, which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, with cost of the petition, may also please be granted to the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as a Constable with the respondents and retired on 31/07/2020 on attaining the age of superannuation. As the retiral dues of the petitioner was not settled, he was forced to give a undertaking that if any recovery is to be made, the same can be made from the retiral dues of the petitioner. He further submits thus the respondents have recovered an amount of Rs. 04,08,819/- from the gratuity of the petitioner. He submits that the recovery was made after the retirement and the petitioner being Class-III employee recovery cannot be made in light of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer); (2015) 4 SCC 334 which was subsequently by followed in the cases 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. He submits that the alleged recovery was made on account of the excess payment made to the petitioner for wrong fixation of pay scale during his service period. Thus, he submits that the 3 recovery so made and the amount so recovered by the respondents may be directed to be refunded back to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that an excess payment was made to the petitioner on account of wrong fixation of pay scale from the month of January, 1995 till his retirement. As the petitioner is given an undertaking, the said recovery was made from the gratuity of the petitioner. As the petitioner was not entitled for excess payment and there is no illegality or irregularity in recovering the same. 4. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner was retired on the post of Constable which is a Class-III post. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was entitled to receive Rs.9,49,757/- as gratuity and he was only paid Rs. 5,40,983/- after deducting an amount of Rs.4,08,819/- which is reflected from paragraph – 2 of the return. Respondent is defending his action of deduction of the said amount on the basis of undertaking given by the petitioner. However, the fact remains that the said excess payment was not made on account of any misrepresentation or fraud played by the petitioner. So far as the contention of the respondent that the petitioner has given undertaking is liable to be rejected in light of judgment passed by this Court in W.A. 264/2020. In the opinion of this Court, the case of the petitioner squarely falls in the parameter laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rafiq Masih (Supra) paragraph 18 of the judgment read as under:- “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 here-in-above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few 4 situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service); (ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or thewho are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery; (iii) Recovery from the 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.” 9. Thus, taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above cited judgments, in the opinion of this Court, the recovery of Rs.04,08,819/- is held to be bad in law and illegal. Accordingly, it is hereby set aside. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner the entire amount was deposited by the petitioner. It is directed that said amount be refunded to the petitioner within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ashish