1 / 6 2026:CGHC:2657 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 443 of 2026 Ku. Anil Machmure D/o Shri Firtu Prasad Machmure, Aged About 58 Years R/o Sai Colony, Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur C.G. 2 - The Director, Public Instructions, Directorate Public Instructions, Raipur, First Floor, C Block, Indravati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 3 - District Education Officer, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara C.G. 4 - The Principal, Government I.R.Y. Multipurpose Higher Secondary School Bhatapara, Block Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara C.G. 5 - Director, Local Fund Audit Raipur, Block No. 1, Second Floor, Indravati Bhawan, District Raipur C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate For State : Ms. Akanksha Verma Dabhadker, Panel Lawyer Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2026.01.23 18:24:06 +0530 2 / 6 S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 16/01/2026 With the consent of parties, case is heard finally. 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 30.10.2025 (Annexure P-1) whereby respondent No.4 has issued a direction to recover excess payment made to petitioner on the ground of wrong pay fixation. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner was appointed on a Class- III post i.e. Shikshakarmi Grade-III. Later on her services were absorbed in the School Education Department on the post of Teacher (LB) in the year 2018 and with the passage of time, she has been extended benefit of revision of pay scale. All of a sudden, vide order impugned dated 30.10.2025, respondent No.4 has directed for recovery of excess amount from petitioner on the ground that excess payment is made due to wrong pay fixation. He submits that alleged excess amount has been paid to petitioner on account of wrong pay-fixation, which was done by the respondents, and therefore, petitioner cannot be held responsible in any manner. He further submits that petitioner being a Class- III employee, respondents may not be permitted to recover amount which was erroneously paid to petitioner, without any misrepresentation or fraud on her part. In support of his submission, he places reliance on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab & ors vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & ors, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 and High Court 3 / 6 of Punjab and Haryana and others vs. Jagdev Singh, reported in (2016) 14 SCC 267. 3. Learned State Counsel would submit that petitioner was mistakenly paid excess salary on account of wrong pay fixation and therefore, the same is recoverable from her. She further submits that petitioner had submitted undertaking mentioning that if any payment is made to her in excess, she will return the same or the authorities will be at liberty to recover it from them. Therefore, the petitioner is now estopped from challenging the impugned recovery order. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner submits that, even if at any point of time, petitioner has given consent for recovery of amount if paid in excess, then also excess amount cannot be recovered from salary of petitioner being Class-III employees. In support of his submission, he places reliance on the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WA No.264/2020 (State of CG vs Labha Ram Dhruv) and WA No.265/2020 (State of CG and others vs. Roshan Lal Baghel). He lastly contended that the impugned order is issued without any notice or opportunity of hearing and therefore also it is patently illegal being in violation of principles of natural justice. 5. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents available in record of writ petition. 6. In the 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 employee by the employer would not be permissible in law. In Para-18 it was observed thus:- 4 / 6 “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. (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. In case 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 5 / 6 overruled or interfered. This aspect is also considered by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Labha Ram Dhruv (Supra) and 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 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” 8. 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 6 / 6 otherwise belongs to Class-III or Class-IV service, recovery of excess amount paid from him/her is impermissible. 9. In the case at hand, admittedly, petitioner is working on the post of Class-III cadre in the School Education Department. It is also not the case of respondents that petitioner had received excess payment by practicing fraud or by making misrepresentation. Thus, petitioner cannot be compelled to refund the amount which has been paid by the respondents on their own without any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of petitioner. 10. 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. 11. Consequently, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 30.10.2025 passed against petitioner is hereby quashed. If any recovery is already made, respondents are directed to refund the amount so recovered to petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of order, failing which recovered amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum till actual date of payment. 12. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen