1 2026:CGHC:26600 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7413 of 2024 Mohd. Zaheer Sheikh S/o Late Shri Mohd. Zareef Sheikh Aged About 58 Years R/o Street No. 11, Qtr. No. 9(B), Sector No. -2, Bhilai, P.S. Bhilai Nagar, Tahsil And Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Labour, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, Police Station And Post - Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Finance, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, Police Station And Post - Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Divisional Joint Director O/o. Divisional Joint Director, Treasury - Accounts And Pension, Durg Division, Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh 4 - Insurance Medical Officer O/o Insurance Medical Officer, Incharge, Employees State Insurance Services, Rajnandgaon Center, Distt. Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2026.07.01 10:48:55 +0530 2 5 - Treasury Officer O/o Treasure Officer, District Treasury, Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh …. Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lav Sharma, Panel Lawyer (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 30/06/2026 1. The petitioner in the instant writ petition has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to produce all the relevant records relating to case of the petitioner before this Hon'ble Court for its kind perusal. (ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quashed the impugned recovery order dated 19.03.2024 issued by Respondent No. 4, Insurance Medical Officer, Rajnandgaon (Annexure P/1). (iii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent authorities to refund the whole deducted amount to the petitioner i.e. Rs. 33,228/- with the interest of 10% per annum. (iv) That this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to 3 direct respondents to give suitable compensation to the petitioner for the mental trauma and agony, harassment and hardships suffered by him as also cost of the litigation.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the service period of the petitioner, the respondent No.4/ Insurance Medical Officer issued the impugned order dated 19.03.2024 (Annexure P/1) directing recovery of an amount of Rs.33,228/- on the ground that due to clerical mistake, his pay had been wrongly fixed and excess salary had been paid to him. It is submitted that the petitioner had been drawing the said pay and allowances since 01.07.2020 and that the alleged excess payment was not attributable to any misrepresentation, fraud or concealment on his part, but was solely on account of a clerical mistake. Learned counsel contends that the impugned recovery is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334, wherein it has been held that recovery of excess payment is unsustainable in law. It is further submitted that the petitioner is working on the post of Pharmacist Grade-II, a Class-III post, and therefore his case squarely falls within the categories carved out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein such recovery has been held to be impermissible. Learned counsel further submits that no show-cause notice was issued and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passing the impugned recovery 4 order, thereby rendering the same violative of the principles of natural justice. On these grounds, it is submitted that the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal and liable to be quashed. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that at the time of pay fixation, it was found that the petitioner's pay had been erroneously fixed by clerical mistake, resulting in excess payment of salary during the course of service. Consequently, an amount of Rs.33,228/- was found recoverable from the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings as well as the material available on record. 5. The principal issue that arises for consideration in the present case is whether the respondents were justified in revising the pay fixation of the petitioner and directing recovery of an amount of Rs.33,228/- during his service period on the ground of erroneous pay fixation, particularly when the alleged excess payment relates to a period commencing from the year 2020, the petitioner was holding a Class-III post, and there is no allegation of any misrepresentation or fraud on his part. A further issue which requires consideration is whether the impugned order could have been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and whether the same are sustainable in light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (Supra). 6. In Rafiq Masih (Supra), the Supreme Court held that while it is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship where 5 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). or (ii) Recovery from retired employees, 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 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 7. From a perusal of the record, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was holding the post of Pharmacist Grade-II, a Class-III post. It is also not in dispute that there is no material available on record to indicate that the petitioner had obtained the alleged excess payment by practicing fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of any material fact. The excess payment, if any, appears to have arisen on account of an act attributable to the employer. 8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the case of the petitioner squarely falls within the categories carved out by the Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (Supra), inasmuch as the petitioner is holding a Class-III post and the alleged excess payment relates to a period much beyond preceding the issuance of the recovery order. Consequently, recovery of the alleged excess amount from the petitioner cannot be sustained in law. 9. Furthermore, the record does not disclose that any show-cause notice was issued or any effective opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner prior to passing the impugned recovery order. The impugned action, therefore, also stands vitiated for non-compliance with the principles of natural justice. 10. At the same time, this Court is not inclined to examine the correctness or otherwise of the pay fixation granted to the petitioner on merits. Merely because recovery of the alleged excess payment is impermissible in view of the law laid down in Rafiq Masih (supra), it would not preclude the respondents from 7 examining the issue of pay fixation in accordance with law. However, any such exercise can be undertaken only after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and passing a reasoned order. 11. Accordingly, the impugned recovery order dated 19.03.2024 (Annexure P/1) is hereby set aside. Liberty is reserved to the respondents to undertake a fresh exercise with regard to pay fixation of the petitioner in accordance with law, after affording him an adequate opportunity of hearing. It is, however, made clear that any recovery of the alleged excess payment already made to the petitioner shall be governed by the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (supra). 12. Consequently, the respondents are directed to release and refund to the petitioner the amount, if any, recovered or withheld pursuant to the impugned recovery order. The respondents shall further ensure release of the amount already recovered, if any, payable to the petitioner. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of 50 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 13. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE S. Bhilwar