1 CGHC010076022025 2026:CGHC:30068 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1620 of 2025 Lal Bahadur Singh S/o Late Shri Bhushan Singh Aged About 62 Years R/o Kbt, Quarter No. 302, Ashiyana Road, Kabirnagar, Raipur, P.S. Kabir-Nagar, Tahsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home And Police, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, Police Station And Post- Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (Cg). 2. Inspector General Of Police (Igp), Office Of Inspector General Of Police, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (Cg). 3. Divisional Joint Director, Office Of Divisional Joint Director, Treasury- Account And Pension, Raipur, Division District- Raipur (Cg). 4. Senior Superintendent Of Police, Office Of Senior S.O. Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 5. Superintendent Of Police, Office Of S.P., Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.07.17 11:39:42 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Dy. Govt. Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 15/07/2026 1. The present petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:- I. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to produce all the relevant records relating to case of the petitioner before this Hon'ble Court for its kind perusal. (ii) That, this Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quashed the impugned Order of Amendment in pay fixation against the petitioner dated 16.03.2024 issued by Respondent No. 5 Superintendent of Police, Mahasamund (C.G) (Annexure P/1). (iii) That, this Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to Set-aside /quash the impugned Revied pay chart /Recovery Chart against the petitioner issued by Respo ndent No. 04 Senior Superintendent of Police, Raipur. (C.G) (Annexure P/2). (iv) That, the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent Authorities to refund the whole deducted amount i.e. Rs 1,11,896 to the petitioner alongwith the interest of 15% per annum. (v) That this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to 3 direct respondents to give suitable compensation to the petitioner for the mental trauma and agony, harassment and hardships suffered by him as also cost of the litigation. 2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of the order dated 16.03.2024 (Annexure P/1) and impugned revised pay chart (Annexure P-2) issued by respondent No.5 whereby the pay fixation of the petitioner have been reduced. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the service period of the petitioner, who is presently working as Sub Inspector, the respondents, upon verification of his records found that his pay has been wrongly fixed on higher side since 2020 to 2023. On that basis the respondent No. 5 issued the order impugned by reducing the pay of the petitioner. He submits that the alleged fixation of pay was neither on account of any misrepresentation nor fraud on the part of the petitioner but was solely due to an error committed by the department itself. He would submit that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered 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. 4. 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 4 payment of salary during the course of service. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings as well as the material available on record. 6. 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 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). 7. 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 5 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." 8. From a perusal of the record, it is 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. 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 holding the post of Sub Inspector. Consequently, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. 6 10. 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. 11. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 16.03.2024 (Annexure P/1) and impugned revised pay chart (Annexure P-2) are hereby set aside as far as recovery of the excess amount of Rs. 1,11,869/-. The respondents are directed to release and refund to the petitioner the amount of Rs. 1,11,869/- recovered pursuant to the impugned order. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. However, liberty is reserved to the respondents to undertake a fresh exercise with regard to pay fixation of the petitioner in accordance with law, after affording him an adequate opportunity of hearing. It is, however, made clear that any recovery of the alleged excess payment already made to the petitioner shall be governed by the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (supra). 12. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Jyoti