1 2026:CGHC:1244 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2249 of 2025 1 - Deo Prakash Dadar S/o Late Shri Neelmani Dadar Aged About 58 Years R/o Qtr. No. H-2, Behind Police Wireless Office, Old Police Line, Lal Bagh, Ward No. 17, Rajnandgaon, P.S. City Kotwali, Tahsil And District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home/ Police, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, Police Station And Post - Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Inspector General Of Police (Igp) O/o Inspector General Of Police, 32 Banglow, Bhilai, District - Durg Chhattisgarh 3 - Divisional Joint Director O/o Divisional Joint Director, Treasury - Accounts And Pension, Durg Division, District - Durg Chhattisgarh 4 - Superintendent Of Police (Telecommunication) O/o Superintendent Of Police (Telecommunication), Bhilai Zone, Bhilai, District - Durg Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Anmol Sharma, P.L. SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 08/01/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following relief (s) :- BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN 2 “(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 High Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the impugned order of amendment in pay fixation dated 29.11.2024 issued by Respondent No. 4, SP (Telecommunication), Bhilai Zone (Annexure P/1). (iii) That, this Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the impugned recovery order of petitioner dated 17.12.2024 for an amount of Rs. 5,83,037/- issued by Respondent No. 4, SP (Telecommunication), Bhilai Zone (Annexure P/2). (iv) That, the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent authorities to refund the whole deducted amount to the petitioner along with the interest of 18% per annum which has been deducted due to the above mentioned impugned recovery order dated 17.12.2024 issued by Respondent No. 4, SP (Telecommunication), Bhilai Zone. (v) 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.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is working on the post of Inspector (Telecommunication) under respondent No.4. Petitioner when attained the age of 58 years, according to the procedure respondent No.4 has sent the service book of petitioner for verification before respondent No.3 and at that time, it was detected that excess payment was made from 01.01.2006 to 01.07.2024 3 erroneously. Respondents authorities have amended the pay fixation of petitioner and thereafter, order/letter dated 17.12.2024 was issued for recovery of amount of Rs.5,83,037/-. The said action on the part of the respondents authorities is arbitrary and in contravention of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab & ors vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc., reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 and Thomas Daniel Vs. State of Kerala & Ors (2022 SCC Online SC 536, and submits that recovery of the payment made mistakenly to Grade-III employee is not permissible. Therefore, letter for recovery issued by respondent is bad in law. He submits that this Court in number of cases relying upon the aforementioned decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court have quashed the proceedings of recovery initiated against petitioner therein and prays for similar relief. 3. Learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that, proceeding of verification of service book of petitioner started only at the instance of petitioner as petitioner himself has submitted letter in this regard to respondent No.4 on 30.06.2024 and upon verifying the service book of petitioner, wrong fixation of pay of petitioner was detected and it revealed that petitioner has been paid excess amount. Accordingly letter for recovery of excess amount paid to petitioner was issued. He however, do not dispute the submission of learned counsel for petitioner with regard to decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rafiq Masih (supra) and Thomas Daniel (supra). 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the reply submitted by State. 4 5. Perusal of Annexure R-1 would show that it is an letter written by petitioner to respondent No.4 requesting for verification of his service book. Except prayer for verification of service book, there is no such request made by petitioner. There is no consent, if any, excess payment is found then it can be recovered from salary of petitioner. 6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) while considering the monetary gains wrongly extended to the petitioner therein in excess of entitlement and direction for its deduction being made by the employer, directed the employer to reimburse the amount deducted. Hon'ble Supreme Court had taken note of the situation wherein recovery by the employer would be impermissible in law and held 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 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. (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. 5 (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.” 7. Perusal of the observation made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) shows that recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service group has been held to be impermissible. Relying upon the decision in the cases of Rafiq Masih (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Thomas Daniel (supra) has further held the recovery from the employees after long time to be unjustified. 8. For the foregoing discussion and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, impugned order/letter of recovery dated 17.12.2024 (Annexure P-2) is hereby quashed. Respondents are directed to return back the amount if recovered from the petitioner pursuant to letter dated 17.12.2024 within period of three months from the date of receipt of order. Otherwise the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 8%. 9. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram