1 / 8 CGHC010225762026 2026:CGHC:29653 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4584 of 2026 Tulsi Ram Sahu S/o Late Shri Kunjlal Sahu Aged About 64 Years Retired Driver, P H E, Irrigation Department Malvi Nagar Chowk, Health Engineering, Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon, C.G., R/o Ganesh Para, Motipur, Tahsil And Distt. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Govt. of C.G. Through The Secretary, Irrigation Department, Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, P.S. Rakhi, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Executive Engineer Public Health Engineering/vidut Yantriki Department, Rajnandgoan, Distt. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 3 - District Treasury Officer Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru) Order on Board 14/07/2026 1. The petitioner in the instant petition has prayed for the following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash recover order P/2 and may direct to refund Rs.3,41,009-00 to the petitioner with interest @ 12%. ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2026.07.15 18:33:44 +0530 2 / 8 10.2 Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2024 as a Driver (Class-IV employee). It is contended that shortly before his retirement, an order directing recovery of Rs.3,41,009/- was issued without issuance of any show cause notice or affording any opportunity of hearing. It is further submitted that after retirement, the respondents withheld the petitioner's retiral benefits and pension, compelling him to deposit Rs.1,81,009/- through challan, while an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- had already been deducted from his salary, thereby recovering the entire amount of Rs.3,41,009/-. He would next submit that the alleged excess payment was never obtained by the petitioner by practising fraud, suppression of facts or misrepresentation. The petitioner merely received the salary and emoluments fixed by the competent authority during the course of his service. Therefore, recovery from a retired Class-IV employee, particularly after retirement, is impermissible in law. It is further contended that the impugned action is violative of the principles of natural justice, as the recovery was effected without granting any opportunity to the petitioner to explain his case. On these grounds, it is prayed that the recovery be declared illegal and the respondents be directed to refund the recovered amount along with consequential benefits. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the recovery has been effected on account of excess payment made to the petitioner during the course of his service due to an erroneous pay 3 / 8 fixation/payment, which came to the notice of the department during scrutiny prior to his retirement. It is contended that the Government is entitled to rectify such mistakes and recover the excess amount paid from public funds. He would next submit that the petitioner himself deposited an amount of Rs.1,81,009/- through treasury challan, while the remaining amount of Rs.1,60,000/- was adjusted from his salary, and consequently the entire recoverable amount of Rs.3,41,009/- has been recovered in accordance with the departmental orders. It is argued that the petitioner cannot claim any vested right over the amount which was erroneously paid to him. He would next submit that the judgment relied upon by the petitioner would have no application to the facts of the present case, as the recovery was initiated pursuant to correction of an erroneous pay fixation and in accordance with the applicable service rules. The respondents, therefore, pray that the writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 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 directing recovery of an amount of Rs.3,41,009/- from the retiral dues of the petitioner after his retirement on the ground of alleged excess payment, when the petitioner had retired as a Class-IV employee, there is no allegation or material indicating any fraud or misrepresentation on his part, and whether such recovery, effected without affording any opportunity of hearing, is sustainable in law. 4 / 8 6. In State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334, the Supreme 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). 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." 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the 5 / 8 record, this Court finds that the controversy in the present case pertains to the legality of the recovery of Rs.3,41,009/- effected from the petitioner on the allegation of excess payment during service. 8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2024 as a Driver (Class-IV employee). It is also not disputed that pursuant to the impugned order, a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- was deducted from the petitioner's salary and the petitioner was required to deposit the remaining amount of Rs.1,81,009/- through treasury challan for release of his retiral dues. Consequently, the entire amount of Rs.3,41,009/- stands recovered from the petitioner. The sole justification put forth by the respondents is that the petitioner had received excess payment due to an erroneous pay fixation. However, a careful perusal of the return filed by the respondents reveals that there is neither any pleading nor any material to indicate that such excess payment was the consequence of any fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of facts on the part of the petitioner. The respondents have also not asserted that the petitioner had played any role in securing the alleged excess payment. Thus, the excess payment, if any, was solely the result of an error committed by the department while fixing or releasing the petitioner's pay and allowances. 9. 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 a retired employee, was holding a Class-IV post and the alleged excess payment relates to the period of approximately four years and three months prior to the petitioner’s retirement. Consequently, recovery of the alleged excess 6 / 8 amount from the petitioner cannot be sustained in law. 10. It is a settled principle that while the employer is competent to rectify an erroneous pay fixation, the right to correct such mistake does not, by itself, confer an unfettered right to recover the excess amount from an employee in every case. The power of recovery is subject to the limitations evolved by judicial pronouncements so as to avoid undue hardship to employees who have received payments without any fault attributable to them. 11. In the present case, the petitioner belongs to Class-IV service and the recovery has been effected after his retirement. The Supreme Court has consistently held that recovery from retired employees or employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV services is legally impermissible where the excess payment was not obtained by fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the employee. The underlying principle is that an employee is entitled to legitimately presume that the salary paid by the employer has been correctly determined and ordinarily arranges his financial affairs on that basis. Requiring such an employee to refund a substantial amount after retirement, for no fault of his own, would be manifestly harsh, arbitrary and inequitable. 12. This Court also finds substance in the contention of the petitioner that the impugned recovery has been ordered without adherence to the principles of natural justice. The respondents have failed to place any material on record to establish that a show-cause notice was issued or that the petitioner was afforded an effective opportunity of hearing 7 / 8 before directing recovery of such a substantial amount from his retiral dues. Since the impugned action visits the petitioner with serious civil consequences, compliance with the principles of natural justice was indispensable. 13. The contention of the respondents that public money cannot be allowed to be retained by the petitioner cannot be accepted in the peculiar facts of the present case. Undoubtedly, public money deserves to be protected; however, where the excess payment has resulted solely from the mistake of the employer, without any contribution from the employee, and the employee has already retired from Class-IV service, the equities overwhelmingly operate in favour of the employee. The respondents cannot shift the burden of their own administrative lapse upon a retired employee. 14. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case squarely falls within the well-recognised exceptions where recovery of excess payment is impermissible, inasmuch as (i) the petitioner is a retired Class-IV employee; (ii) there is no allegation or proof of fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of material facts on his part; (iii) the excess payment, if any, was solely attributable to the respondents; and (iv) the recovery has been effected without complying with the principles of natural justice. 15. Consequently, the impugned order dated 3.4.2024 is unsustainable in law and is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to refund the amount so recovered from the petitioner within a period of 90 days from 8 / 8 the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In the event of default, the aforesaid amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the expiry of the stipulated period till the date of actual payment. 16. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE ashu