1 CGHC010324582025 2026:CGHC:29780 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8817 of 2025 Dinesh Paswan (Prasad) S/o Late Shri Shivji Prasad Aged About 61 Years R/o H.S.C.L. Colony, Ruabandha, Qtr. No. 45/b, Ward No. 55, Civic Center, Bhilai, P.S. Sector-6, Tahsil And Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home/ Police, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, Police Station And Post - Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Inspector General Of Police (IGP) O/o Inspector General Of Police, Bastar Range, Lalbag, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh 3 - Divisional Joint Director O/o Divisional Joint Director, Treasury - Account And Pension, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, Distt. - Bastar Chhattisgarh 4 - Superintendent Of Police (SP) O/o Superintendent Of Police, Beejapur, District - Beejapur Chhattisgarh …. Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2026.07.15 11:00:30 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate alongwith Mr. Rishabdev Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Govt. Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 14/07/2026 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of the impugned recovery order dated 18.02.2025 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No.4/ Superintendent of Police, Beejapur, District Beejapur (C.G.). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the service period of the petitioner, who is presently working as Assistant Sub-Inspector (Arms) in the Police Department, the respondent No.4, after verification of the petitioner's service book, issued the impugned recovery order dated 18.02.2025 (Annexure P/1) directing recovery of Rs.2,74,887/- on the ground that excess payment had been made to the petitioner due to erroneous fixation of his 3rd time scale pay for the period from January, 2016 to February, 2023. It is submitted that the alleged excess payment was not attributable to any misrepresentation, fraud or concealment on the part of the petitioner, but was solely on account of an error committed by the department itself. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is holding a Class-III post and is due to retire on 31.01.2027, yet recovery has been initiated less than two years before his retirement by deducting Rs.10,000/- per month from his salary. It is contended that the 3 impugned recovery is squarely hit by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334, as recovery from a Class-III employee and recovery of excess payment pertaining to a period exceeding five years are impermissible in law. Hence, the impugned recovery 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. 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.2,74,887/- during his service period on the ground of erroneous pay fixation, particularly when 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). 4 6. In Rafiq Masih (Supra), 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 5 refunded. The officer furnished an undertaking while opting for the revised pay scale. He is bound by the undertaking." 7. From a perusal of the record, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was holding 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. Accordingly, the impugned recovery order dated 18.02.2025 (Annexure P/1) is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to release and refund to the petitioner the amount, if any, 6 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 two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 11. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE $. Bhilwar