1 2026:CGHC:5486 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8269 of 2023 Judgment Reserved On : 19.01.2026 Judgment Delivered On : 31.01.2026 Sajeeda Parveen W/o Mohammad Habib Khan, Aged About 58 Years Occupation Teacher, Khalsa Higher Secondary School Raipur, R/o Behind Nurani Masjid, Raja Talab Raipur, Tahsil And, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education, New Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - District Education Officer, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Principal, Khalsa Higher Secondary School Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Senior Advocate with Mr. Navin Shukla, Advocate For Respondent /State For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rahul Ambasht, Advocate SHYNA AJAY Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY DN: cn=SHYNA AJAY, o=PERSONAL, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN 2 SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Order 1. By way of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the legality and validly of the impugned recovery order dated 27.9.2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Principal, Khalsa Higher Secondary School, Raipur (CG) (respondent No.3 herein). Under the impugned order, the concerned respondents seek to recover a sum of Rs.12,06,864/- on the ground of alleged excess payment made to the petitioner from April 2006 to June 2023, directed to be deducted in monthly installments of Rs.38,000/- per month. The said order has been passed on the basis of an Audit Report, according to which, the 6th & 7th Pay Scales were incorrectly calculated from the year 2006 to 2022, resulting in the said excess payment. 2. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs in the petition : 10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner from the possession of the respondent authorities for its kind perusal. 10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned letter dated 27.09.2023 (Annexure-P/1) issued by Principal Khalsa Higher Secondary School Raipur i.e. respondent no. 3, in 3 the interest of justice. 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted. 3. The relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner is posted as a Teacher in a fully aided minority Sikh Institution i.e. Khalsa Higher Secondary School, Raipur. The petitioner was appointed on 26.2.1999 and since then, she has been working in the said school. During the course of her service, the petitioner was granted the benefit of annual increments and higher pay scales as per 6th and 7th Pay Commission recommendations. The sanction for grant of these increments and Pay Scales were duly approved by the competent authority i.e. District Education Officer, Raipur. Consequently, the petitioner has been receiving the said benefits in accordance with the approval granted by the competent authorities. The petitioner was granted pay scale under the Pay Revision Rules, 2009 and her pay was revised as per the time scale effective from 1.4.2006, fixed at Rs.15,600/- in the Pay Band plus a Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/-, in total, Rs.21,000/-. Subsequently, her pay was again revised under the Pay Revision Rules, 2017. As of 1.7.2016, her Basic Pay was fixed at Rs.73,200/-, which was further revised to Rs.75,400/-, effective from 1.7.2017. Thereafter, her Pay Scale was further revised to Rs.77,700/- as of 1.7.2018. The aforesaid pay scales were duly 4 approved by the concerned District Education Officer (respondent No.2 herein). It is stated that the petitioner has devoted her entire career to the noble profession of imparting education to students. She is the mother of two children, who were also pursuing their education in the same institution in the year 2006. Having received the aforementioned pay scales, she utilized the funds for her children’s education and maintenance of her family under the bonafide belief that it was her rightful salary. An Audit Report was purportedly prepared by the Joint Director, Chhattisgarh State Audit, Raipur-1 (CG), wherein it was alleged for the first time that the petitioner had received an excess payment of Rs.12,06,864/-. This excess payment is said to have been made between 1.1.2006 to 1.7.2020. However, it was only on 27.9.2023 that a notice was given to the petitioner for the proposed recovery. Prior to this, the petitioner had no knowledge of any such discrepancy nor was she ever informed by the authorities that the benefits of the higher pay scales were being calculated incorrectly. The petitioner is on the verge of retirement, having attained the age of 58 years at the time of filing of this petition on 9.10.2023. It is the case of the petitioner that in the absence of any misrepresentation or fraud on her part in the fixation of her pay, no recovery can legally be effected against her. 4. Ms. Fouzia Mirza, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Navin Shukla, Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the impugned recovery notice is per se illegal and not sustainable. The higher pay scales i.e. 6 & 7 Pay Scales along with the 5 subsequent increments, were granted only after due approval of the competent authorities. She submits that there has been no misrepresentation or fault on the part of the petitioner in receiving the aforesaid amount; the increments and higher pay scales were granted by the concerned respondents without any involvement or influence from the petitioner. Furthermore, the recovery of the alleged excess payments from 2006 to 2023 is being sought for the first time vide the impugned notice dated 27.9.2023 on the basis of an audit report. Prior to this, the petitioner was neither issued any notice nor informed of any such discrepancy in her salary. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that even if any excess payment has been made, it is not recoverable for the reasons that : first, the petitioner has not made misrepresentation or played any fraud. Second, the recovery pertains to payments made more than five years prior to the date of the recovery notice. Third, the petitioner, being a non-gazetted employee, would suffer extreme hardship if such a substantial sum is permitted to be recovered at the fag end of her career. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that any error or mistake committed in fixation of the said pay scales is solely attributable to the respondent authorities. There is no material on record to attribute any act of fraud or misrepresentation to the petitioner. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that it is a settled position of law, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments, that the recovery cannot be directed where 6 the excess payment was not received due to any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee. In support of her submissions, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jogeswar Sahoo & others Vs. The District Judge, Cuttack and others1, wherein the Stenographers were erroneously paid excess salary and increments starting in 2017. Although the recovery was directed in the year 2023, the employees had already retired in the year 2020. The Supreme Court quashed the recovery order, holding that the petitioner therein had superannuated, did not hold any gazetted post and the recovery pertained to an old period. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that time and again, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, right from Syed Abdul Qadir Vs. State of Bihar 2 and State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)3, to Thomas Daniel Vs. State of Kerala and others 4, has held that the recovery of excess payment is not sustainable in the eyes of law unless it is proven that such payment resulted from misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rahul Ambasht, Counsel for respondent No.3 submits that a huge amount of Rs.12,06,864/- was paid to 1. SLP(C) No(c).5918/2024 2. (2009) 3 SCC 475 3. (2015) 4 SCC 334 4. (2022) SCC Online SC 536 7 the petitioner to which she had no legal entitlement. He submits that while this payment arose from the grant of higher pay scales, the petitioner was not entitled to get the same at the material time. Consequently, the mere fact of payment does not vest any right in the petitioner to retain the same nor does it estop the respondents from seeking recovery. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.3 further submits that the petitioner, being a teacher by profession, was well aware of the aforesaid fact. However, despite having knowledge of the erroneous fixation, she did not inform the authorities. Therefore, the excess amount to which the petitioner is otherwise not entitled cannot be retained by the petitioner, particularly when she was fully aware that she had no legal entitlement to it. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.3 would place reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chandi Prasad Uniyal and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others5, to submit that excess payment of public money, often described as taxpayers money, cannot be allowed to remain with the recipients. He submits that while the excess payment by the Government Officers may occur due to various reasons such as negligence, carelessness, collusion, favoritism etc., but ultimately the money belongs to the taxpayers. As such, any amount received without the authority of law can always be recovered and there is no impediment to the recovery of the said amount. Learned Senior Counsel submits that in view of the 5. (2012) 8 SCC 617 8 aforementioned legal principles, the impugned notice has been rightly issued to the petitioner, which does not call for any interference. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed with the petition carefully. 8. From a bare perusal of the record, it is quite vivid that the proposed recovery sought from the petitioner arises from excess salary payments. These increments and the benefits of the 6th & 7th Pay Scales were granted only after due approval from the District Education Officer, Raipur. Moreover, it is apparent that the petitioner had made no misrepresentation in securing these benefits. The pay scales were granted as far back as 2006 and continued until 2023 and the subject amount(s) was disbursed after due verification and have already been utilized by the petitioner. Additionally, the petitioner is on the verge of retirement. Under such circumstances, a recovery order based solely on an audit enquiry cannot be sustained, particularly when the petitioner has not made any misrepresentation. This is not a case where excess payments were secured through fraud or deceit. On the contrary, the pleadings and argument clearly show that the Department, by its own incorrect calculations and without any involvement or influence from the petitioner, granted the higher pay scales. Furthermore, it is also pertinent to mention here that the impugned recovery notice has been stayed as an interim measure by this Court vide order dated 16.10.2023, considering the prima facie case made out by the petitioner. 9 9. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a consistent line of precedent from Syed Abdul Qadir (supra) to Jogeswar Sahoo (supra) has repeatedly arrived at the conclusion that an order of recovery cannot be passed unless and until misrepresentation or fraud is established, particularly against a non-gazetted employee. In the recent judgment of Jogeswar Sahoo (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the principles laid down in Syed Abdul Qadir (supra), Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (supra), Thomas Daniel (supra), Union of India Vs. M. Bhaskar. 6, and V. Gangaram Vs. Regional Jt. Director7, observed in para 11 and 12 as follows : 11.In the case at hand, the appellants were working on the post of Stenographers when the subject illegal payment was made to them. It is not reflected in the record that such payment was made to the appellants on account of any fraud or misrepresentation by them. It seems, when the financial benefit was extended to the appellants by the District Judge, Cuttack, the same was subsequently not approved by the High Court which resulted in the subsequent order of recovery. It is also not in dispute that the payment was made in the year 2017 whereas the recovery was directed in the year 2023. However, in the meanwhile, the appellants have retired in the year 2020. It is also an admitted position that the appellants were not afforded any opportunity of hearing before issuing the 6. (1996) 4 SCC 416 7. (1997) 6 SCC 139 10 order of recovery. The appellants having superannuated on a ministerial post of Stenographer were admittedly not holding any gazetted post as such applying the principle enunciated by this Court in the above quoted judgment, the recovery is found unsustainable. 12. For the afore-stated, we are of the considered view that the appeal deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court and in consequence the orders dated 12.09.2023 and 08.09.2023 by which the appellants were directed to deposit the excess drawn arrears are set aside. 10. In the light of the aforesaid principles of law and the facts projected by the respective counsel, particularly considering that the petitioner is a non-gazetted employee (teacher), who has served since 1999 and is due to retire shortly and also considering that the recovery pertains to a period beginning from the year 2006, based solely on an audit conducted in the year 2023 and there is no whisper on record that while obtaining the higher pay scales, the petitioner has made any misrepresentation or committed any fraud and further considering that the instant case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jogeswar Sahoo (supra), this Court deems it appropriate to quash the impugned recovery order (Annexure P/1). Ordered accordingly. 11. Consequently, the Petition is allowed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shyna Ajay Judge