1 2026:CGHC:5725 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6207 of 2022 • Smt. Vidya Sharma W/o Late Shri Vishwa Dev Sharma Aged About 70 Years Retired Upper Division Clerk, Library Department, Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University Raipur Chhattisgarh. R/o Kota Raipur,, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University Through Its Registrar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Deputy Registrar General Administrative Department, Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Arpit Paarakh, counsel appears on behalf of Mr. Yogendra Pandey, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 02/02/2026 1. Heard. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside the impugned recovery order dated 20.09.2022 (Annexure-P/1) in the interest of justice. 10.2 Any other relief as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.” DEEPTI JHA Digitally signed by DEEPTI JHA 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working on the post of Upper Division Clerk with the respondents and retired in the month of November, 2016, after attaining the age of superannuation. He further submits that after lapse of about 6 years, the impugned recovery order dated 20.09.2022 (Annexure-P/1) was issued and thereby directed to pay Rs.64,441/- as excess payment made to the petitioner for wrong fixation of pay scale. He submits that impugned order of recovery was passed after retirement and petitioner being Class-III employee cannot be subjected to any recovery in light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab And Others Versus Rafiq Masih (white washer) and Others, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334. Thus, he submits that the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the impugned order of recovery passed after undertaking given by the petitioner that she would make all the payment of any excess payment. Thus, there is no irregularity or illegality in passing the impugned order. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. There is no dispute of the fact that petitioner retired in the month of November, 2026, on attaining the age of superannuation. It is also not in dispute by the learned counsel for the respective parties that the petitioner was a Class-III employee. Admittedly, the impugned order dated 20.09.2022 (Annexure-P/1) was passed after about 6-7 years of retirement of the petitioner. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rafiq Masih (supra), has laid down the parameters, in which, recovery from Class-III and Class-IV employee are impermissible, in para 18, which is as under:- “18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on 3 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 the employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service). (ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the 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.” 8. It is not a case of the respondents that the excess payment of erroneous pay scale has been made on account of misrepresentation or fraud played by the petitioner, thus, in the opinion of this Court, the case of the petitioner is squarely falls within the parameters as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme 4 Court in case of Rafiq Masih (supra). Thus, impugned order dated 20.09.2022 (Annexure-P/1) deserves to be and is hereby set aside. 9. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is allowed. 10. Interlocutory application(s), pending if any, also stand disposed of. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Deepti Jha