1 2026:CGHC:23283 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4262 of 2026 Satish Kumar Dubey S/o Late Rewaram Dubey Aged About 62 Years Previously Posted As Inspector (Telecommunication), R/o Housing Board Colony, Nardaha, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home/ Police, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Police Station And Post - Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Inspector General Of Police (I.G.P.) 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) (Cause title taken from CIS) SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2026.05.15 19:21:50 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Shri Ashutosh Mishra, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Shri Vivek Verma, Govt. Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 15.05.2026 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking quashment of recovery order dated 10.06.2025 issued by respondent No. 4 i.e. Superintendent of Police (Tele communication) Bhilai (C.G.). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was serving on the post of Inspector (Telecommunication) under the Home Department of the State of Chhattisgarh and was due to retire on 30.11.2025 upon attaining the age of superannuation. During verification of the service book and pension papers, the respondent authorities scrutinized the service records of the petitioner and thereafter detected alleged excess payment on account of revised pay fixation for the period from January, 2016 to April, 2025. Consequently, the respondents revised the pay fixation of the petitioner and issued impugned recovery order dated 10.06.2025 directing recovery of Rs.1,36,911/- from the salary dues of the petitioner in monthly installments prior to retirement. 3 Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner never committed any fraud, concealment or misrepresentation for obtaining the alleged excess payment and the entire pay fixation was carried out by the respondent department itself. It is also submitted that the petitioner is a Class-III employee and the alleged excess payment pertains to a period beyond five years prior to issuance of the impugned recovery order and further, the recovery has been initiated immediately before retirement. He further submits that the petitioner is holding Class-III post and according to the decision in case of State of Punjab and others V. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, recovery of the payment made mistakenly to Class -III employees is not permissible. He also contended that the similar view has been taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others v. Jagdev Singh reported in (2016) 14 SCC 267 and by the Division Bench of this Court in case of State of Chhattisgarh v. Labha Ram Dhruv in Writ Appeal No.264 of 2020 and also in case of State of Chhattisgarh and others v. Roshan Lal Baghel in Writ Appeal No.265 of 2020. He further submits that recovery 4 made by the respondents from the petitioner is erroneous and not permissible and prays that the order of recovery dated 10.06.2025 be set aside and direction be issued to respondents to return back the amount recovered from the petitioner. 3. Learned State counsel opposes the submission made and submits that the order of recovery is just and proper and need no interference. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the documents annexed. 5. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rafiq Masih(supra) has observed thus: “10. In State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (Supra) this Court held that while it is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship where payments have mistakenly been made by an employer, in the following situations, a recovery by the employer would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' 5 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. 11. The principle enunciated in Proposition (ii) above cannot apply to a situation such as in the present case. In the present case, the ofÏcer to whom the 6 payment was made in the first instance was clearly placed on notice that any payment found to have been made in excess would be required to be refunded. The ofÏcer furnished an undertaking while opting for the revised pay scale. He is bound by the undertaking.” 6. In the aforementioned facts of the case, where undisputedly petitioner is holding Class-III post, recovery of the amount from petitioner is not permissible as observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rafiq Masih (supra). 7. Considering the decision of the Hon’ble supreme Court as also the Division Bench of this Court, impugned order of recovery dated 10.06.2025 (Annexure P-1) is quashed. Respondents are directed to return back the amount, if any, recovered from the petitioner within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of the order. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the above extent. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Shoaib