1 / 6 2026:CGHC:13698 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7626 of 2024 Jethuram Tandon S/o Musau Ram Tandon Aged About 62 Years R/o Pendri, Post Office Bal Mohtara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Joint Director Treasury, Account And Pension Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh 3 - District Education Officer Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh 4 - Block Education Officer Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. V.K. Sharma, Advocate For State : Ms. Sakshi Bajpai, Panel Lawyer S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2026.03.25 18:35:36 +0530 2 / 6 23.03.2026 With the consent of parties, case is heard finally. 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs: “(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash impugned order dated 03.06.2024 Annexure P-1 and amount recovered may be refunded with 6% interest, in the interest of justice. (ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case including cost of the petition, may also be granted.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner while working on the post of Head Master, Middle School stood retired from service on 31st May 2024. After retirement petitioner was issued impugned notice of recovery dated 03.06.2024 (Annexure P-1) asking the petitioner to deposit Rs.1,22,881/- alleging that excess amount has been paid to the petitioner at the time of pay fixation. Petitioner was compelled to give consent for deduction of amount from salary. Since the pensionary benefit payable to petitioner was withheld, petitioner has deposited the above amount with the respondent authority. Recovery which is said to be made from petitioner is against excess payment made to him towards salary due to wrong fixation of pay. Excess payment is not on account of any suppression of fact or fraud played by petitioner with respondent authority. Therefore recovery of excess amount made to petitioner is not permissible. In support of his submission he places reliance upon decision in case of State of Punjab & ors vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & ors, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334. 3 / 6 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State oppose submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that deduction is made pursuant to consent given by petitioner to the department in this regard. Recovery is against excess payment made to petitioner due to wrong fixation of pay. There is no arbitrariness on the part of respondent in deducting the amount which is paid in excess to petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with writ petition. 5. Recovery which is made from petitioner is towards excess payment made to him due to wrong fixation of pay. It is not the case of respondent that excess payment is made to petitioner due to misrepresentation or suppression of fact or any fraud played by petitioner with respondent. 6. In 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:- “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: 4 / 6 (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 High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others vs. Jagdev Singh, reported in (2016) 14 SCC 267, 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 overruled or interfered. This aspect is also considered by the Division Bench of this Court in WA No.264/2020 (State of CG vs Labha Ram Dhruv) wherein it was 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 5 / 6 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. In the case at hand, it is not the case of respondents that petitioner had received excess payment by practicing fraud or by making misrepresentation. Thus, petitioner cannot be compelled to return the amount which has been paid by the respondents on their own without any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of petitioner. 9. 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 due to wrong fixation of pay and being so, recovery against petitioner is not sustainable. 6 / 6 10. Consequently, writ petition is allowed. Letter Annexure P-1 dated 03.06.2024 is quashed. Respondents are directed to refund the amount of Rs.1,22,881/- 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 from the date of order till its realization. 11. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen