1 2026:CGHC:26797 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5525 of 2022 Likhan Ram Sinha S/o Late Itwari Ram Sinha Aged About 64 Years Resident Of C/o. Maa Gayatri Dental Clinic, Gurur, District Balod (C.G.). ... Petitioner versus 1- State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Department Of Agriculture, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chhattisgarh State Agriculture Marketing Board Through - Managing Director, Beez Bhawan, Telibandha, G.E. Road, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Joint Director Chhattisgarh State Agriculture Marketing Board, Jagdalpur, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh. 4 - Secretary Krishi Upaz Mandi Samiti, Jagdalpur, District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Praveen K. Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State For Respondents No. 2, 3 & 4 : : Mr. Topi Lal Bareth, Panel Lawyer Ms. Priti Yadav, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 01/07/2026 Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE 2 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 27-08-2020 and 26-08-2020 (Annexure P-1), by which amount of Rs.5,75,114/- has been recovered from the retrial dues of the petitioner. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to refund the amount Rs.5,75,114/-, which has been recovered from the retrial dues of petitioner along with interest. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent No.3 to take decision over the pending appeal of the petitioner (Annexure P-3). 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deems fit and appropriate.” 2. In the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 27.08.2020 & 26.08.2020 whereby an order of recovery was issued by respondent No.4. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk under respondent No.4 and was subsequently promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-II and thereafter Assistant Grade-I. He retired from service on 30.04.2020 after attaining the age of superannuation. He would further submit that after retirement, respondent No.4 issued the impugned recovery order to the tune of Rs.5,75,114/- on the ground that the pay scale of the petitioner was fixed on the higher side with effect from 01.04.2006 and the same continued till 30.04.2020. He would also submit that there was no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner; the petitioner was a Class-III employee and the order of recovery has been passed after his retirement; thus, it would be very difficult for the petitioner to refund the said amount. It is further submitted that the order of recovery is contrary to the principles laid 3 down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the submission made by counsel for the petitioner and submit that due to a mistake, the pay scale of the petitioner was fixed on the higher side and when this fact was brought to the notice of the department, a decision was taken to recover the excess amount paid to the petitioner. It is further submitted that an undertaking was given by the petitioner whereby he agreed to adjustment/recovery of any excess amount paid to him; therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed with the petition. 6. It is not in dispute that the Revised Pay Rules, 2009 and 2017 do not provide any provision seeking refund of any excess amount paid by the employer, nor do they contain any provision requiring an undertaking for recovery of any amount paid on the higher side. 7. It is argued by learned counsel for the respondents that an undertaking was furnished by the petitioner; however, in the absence of any statutory provision, such an undertaking would not be binding upon the petitioner/government servant. 8. In the present case, the pay of the petitioner was fixed on the higher side by the department itself and such fixation remained effective from 01.04.2006 till the date of retirement of the petitioner, i.e., 30.04.2020. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was a Class-III employee and there was no misrepresentation or fraud on his part. The decision to recover the amount was taken by respondent No.4 after about 14 years and after the retirement of the petitioner. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) has summarized the permissible exceptions to recovery in paragraph 18, and has clearly held that recovery in the following cases would be impermissible in law:- 4 “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: (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.” 10. In the present case, the petitioner belongs to Class-III service, the alleged excess payment spans over more than 14 years, and there is no allegation of misrepresentation or fraud, therefore, the case of the petitioner squarely falls within clauses (i) and (iii) of the guidelines laid down in the matter of Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (supra). Accordingly, the impugned recovery order is liable to and is hereby quashed. 5 11. It is informed that the excess amount paid to the petitioner has already been adjusted from his retiral dues. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are directed to refund the said amount forthwith along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of recovery till its realization. 12. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim