1 2026:CGHC:27211 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6655 of 2021 1 - Mohan Lal Sahu S/0 Shri Maksudan Ram Sahu Aged About 60 Years Working Sahu As Headmaster In Primary School Madeli, Block Magarlod, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, R/o Ward No. 25, Near Om Shanti Bhawan, Shanti Nagar, Magarlod, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Finance Depatment, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director, Directorate Of Treasury Accounts And Pension, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Divisional Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts And Pension Department, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate For State : Mr. Amandeep Singh, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 02.07.2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order of recovery passed against the petitioner (Annexure P/1) by the Divisional Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts & Pension Department, Raipur. 10.2) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/writs, Order/orders, direction/directions to respondent authorities to set aside the order dated 03.10.23 (Annexure P/3) passed by the office of Divisional Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts & Pension Department, Raipur with respect to deduction made of -2- excessive payment made to the petitioner from his death cum retiral dues and subsequently to repay the petitioner the deducted amount along with interest.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that initially, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Sub-Teacher on temporary/ad hoc basis and posted at Primary School Maldi, District Mahasamund vide order dated 20.02.1985 and thereafter, his services were regularized vide order dated 08.04.1987. He would further submit that by mistake, pay scale of the petitioner was fixed at higher side which continued till 01.07.2016 and thereafter, respondent No.3 issued an order of recovery to the tune of Rs.1,58,933/-. He would contend that no specific order of recovery had been issued earlier, but it was issued during the pendency of this petition. He would further contend that the petitioner retired from services on 31.08.2023 and he was a Class- III employee; there was no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner; mistake was detected by the department after long 20 years, therefore, case of the petitioner is squarely covered with the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, 2015 AIR SCW 501. He would pray to quash the order of recovery dated 03.10.2023 passed by respondent No.3. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Singh, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondents/State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Rastogi. He would submit that due to mistake, pay scale of the petitioner was fixed at higher side and when this fact was detected 3 by the departments, a decision was taken to recover the excess amount paid to the petitioner. He would contend that before retirement of the petitioner, office of respondent No.3 issued an order of recovery. It is also submitted by Mr. Singh that an undertaking was given by the petitioner, therefore, the department adjusted the excess amount paid to the petitioner. He would submit that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. Initially, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Sub-Teacher on temporary/ad hoc basis and posted at Primary School Maldi, District Mahasamund vide order dated 20.02.1985 and his services were regularized vide order dated 08.04.1987. The pay scale of the petitioner was fixed at higher side by the department itself on 08.04.1987 and it continued till the year 2016. 6. It is apparent that there was no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner was a Class-III employee and mistake of the department was detected after long 20 years. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra) while dealing with similar issue held as under :- “(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 -4- 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.” 8.Having considered the facts of the present case and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra), order of recovery passed by respondent No.3 dated 03.10.2023 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is hereby quashed. The amount, if any recovered, shall be refunded to the petitioner forthwith. 9. With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha