1 2026:CGHC:23877 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2590 of 2026 Anju Mishra W/o Late Shri Suresh Kumar Mishra Aged About 54 Years R/o Ayodhya Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Dept. Of Revenue And Disaster Managment, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur , District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector, Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Sub Divisional Officer, (Revenue) Takhatpur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Tehsildar Takhatpur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Divisional Joint Director, Treasury Account And Pension, Bilsapur Composite Building Near Collectorate, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 15/06/2026 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner, who is the wife of Late Suresh Kumar Mishra, a government employee, died on 27/06/2025, is challenging the order dated 10/03/2026, issued AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2026.06.16 16:41:21 +0530 2 by the respondent No.4 whereby an amount of Rs. 12,19,278/- has been directed to be recovered from the petitioner on the ground of excess amount due to wrong pay fixation. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of the petitioner was Class-III employee, who died in harness on 27/06/2025 and after the death of husband of the petitioner, by impugned order dated 10/03/2026, an amount of Rs. 12,19,278/- was directed to be recovered from the petitioner assigning the reason that since 01/04/2006 to 27/06/2025, some additional payment has been made to the husband of the petitioner while he was discharging his duties as Class-III employee. Learned counsel submits that neither any document pertaining to such recovery was ever communicated to the husband of the petitioner nor any order of recovery had been passed against the petitioner’s husband during his lifetime. Learned counsel further submits that the recovery order passed by the respondent authorities against the petitioner, is contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab V/s Rafiq Masih & Ors. reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334. The order of recovery of excess payment in absence of any show cause notice and opportunity of hearing, is bad in law and the same is against the principle of natural justice. 3. Learned counsel for the State submits that due to some wrong fixation of the pay, some excess payment has been made to 3 the husband of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the recovery order has been issued against the petitioner in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 65 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents and the pleadings made by the petitioner as well as the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra). 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra) has issued guidelines which reads as under :- “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' 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 4 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 officer to whom the 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 officer furnished an undertaking while opting for the revised pay scale. He is bound by the undertaking.” 6. In the case at hand, from perusal of the record, it reflects that recovery of Rs.12,19,278/- has been made on account of alleged excess payment made to the petitioner’s husband during the service period between 01/04/2006 to 27/06/2025. No document concerning such recovery was ever provided to the petitioner's husband, and no order for recovery was issued against him while he was in service. Thus, the recovery made without affording any opportunity of hearing is contrary to law and violative of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 10/03/2026, deserves to be and is 5 hereby quashed. 7. Consequently, the writ petition stands allowed. If any retiral benefits payable to the petitioner's husband are still pending with the State authorities, the same shall be disbursed to the petitioner, upon due verification and in accordance with law, within a period of 40 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Amardeep