1 CGHC010285212022 2026:CGHC:28663 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5762 of 2022  Smt. Deepti Thakur Aged About 59 Years Presently Posted As Staff Nurse At, District Hospital, Janta Colony, Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. The Principal, Secretary Department Of Finance Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. The Additional Chief Medical Superintendent, District Hospital Raipur- District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4. The Director Treasury Accounts And Pension, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 5. The Joint Director Treasury Account And Pension, Raipur, Chhattisgarh- District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 6. Drawing And Disbursement Officer, Raipur, Chhattisgarh District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Juhi Jaiswal, Advocate For State : Ms. Veethika Choubey, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 09.07 .2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records of the case of the petitioner. 10.2. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.07.09 17:31:57 +0530 2 pleased to quash the impugned show cause notice dated 11.03.2022 (Annexure P/1), passed by the respondent No.3. 10.3. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority not to make any recovery from the petitioner and if any had been made, the same be refunded. 10.4. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost of the petition.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Nursing Staff under the respondents in the year 1990. She would submit that pursuant to circular dated 11.09.1985 benefit of advance increment was extended to the Staff Nurses possessing degree or diploma. It is further submitted by Ms. Jaiswal that the petitioner was entitled to get benefit of advance increment and said benefit was extended, but the respondent No. 3 vide order dated 11.03.2022 issued a notice of recovery of excess payment inter alia on the ground that the petitioner was wrongly extended benefit of advance increment. It is submitted by Ms. Jaiswal that the petitioner is Class – III employee and there was no misrepresentation on her part and benefit was extended way back, and at present she got retired from services on account of superannuation, therefore, the 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 v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer); (2015) 4 SCC 334. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose. It is argued that the petitioner has filed this petition against issuance of show-cause notice, therefore, this petition is not maintainable. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra) has summarized the permissible exceptions to recovery in para 18 and has clearly held that recovery in the following cases would be impermissible in law :– “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. ” 6. In the present case, the petitioner was a Class – III employee, and there is no allegation of misrepresentation or fraud against her. The benefit of advance 4 increment was extended by the department itself and the petitioner has already got retired from service on account of superannuation. Therefore, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered with the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih(supra). 7. In view of the above discussion, and in light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra), the recovery notice Annxure P/1 dated 11.03.2022 is held bad in law, accordingly, quashed. Any amount recovered from the petitioner shall be refunded to the petitioner forth with. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant