1 CGHC010047352021 2026:CGHC:30511 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1206 of 2021 1 - Smt. Maya Sahu W/o Shri Motilal Sahu Aged About 62 Years Retired Assistant Grade, R/o Bauripara Ambikapur, P.S.- Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Urban Administration And Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Joint Director Urban Administration And Development Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Commissioner Municipal Corporation Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 4 - The Deputy Director Local Treasury, Account And Pension Ambikapur, Surguja Division, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner/s : Shri Manoj Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri R.C.S. Deo, P.L. For Respondent No.3 : Shri H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Preeti Yadav, Advocate. NIRMALA RAO 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 17.07.2026 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside impugned order dated 01/04/2019 (Annexure P1) passed by the respondent no. 4. 10.3 That, This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to remit back the recovered amount i.e. Rs 5,33,866/- To the petitioner and sanction/disburse the final pension, amount of Gratuity, arrears of pay and all other monetary benefits and entire retiral dues of the petitioner along with the interest of @ 18% per annum, without any further reduction and at the earliest. 10.4 That, any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of this case, may also be granted to the petitioner. 10.5 That the cost of the petition may also be granted” 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was an employee of the Urban Administration & Development Department and after attaining the age of superannuation, retired from service on 31.7.2018 from the post of Assistant Grade-I. He would contend that after her retirement, an order of recovery to 3 the tune of Rs.5,33,866/- was issued by respondent No.3 on account of excess payment paid to the petitioner between 8.5.1980 to 31.12.2013 and from April, 2012 to July, 2018, alongwith excess payment of leave encashment amounting to Rs.52,185/-. He would submit that even after her retirement, no decision was taken with regard to payment of her retiral dues and she was compelled to furnish an undertaking. Therefore, she submitted an application dated 9.4.2019 alongwith a cheque for Rs.1,50,866/-. It is contended that there was no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner. The pay-scale of the petitioner was erroneously fixed at higher side by the department itself, the petitioner was a Class-III employee and the mistake was detected by the department only after 23 years. He would contend that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered with the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334. 3) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent No.3 would submit that due to an inadvertent mistake, the pay-scale of the petitioner was fixed at higher side and when this fact was brought into notice of respondent No.2, the order of recovery was passed. He would further contend that the petitioner was also paid excess leave encashment amounting to Rs.52,185/-, which is recoverable 4 from her. It is further argued that the petitioner furnished an undertaking alongwith a cheque for Rs.1,50,866/- and consent was given to adjust the remaining amount of Rs.3,83,000/- from gratuity. He would submit that the petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the State would support the contention made by counsel for respondent No.3. 4) Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5) Admittedly, there is no provision in the Chhattisgarh Revision of Pay Rules, 2017 requiring or recognizing such an undertaking. Therefore, any undertaking given by the petitioner, would not be binding upon her. As argued by counsel for the petitioner, no action was being taken by the respondent authorities to finalize her pension case, therefore, the part amount was refunded through cheque and consent was given to adjust remaining amount from her gratuity. Thus, it can reasonably be presumed that the application dated 9.4.2019 alongwith the cheque for Rs.1,50,866/- was submitted by the petitioner under compulsion. It is an admitted fact that the pay-scale of the petitioner was fixed at higher side by the department itself and there was no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner. During the period from April, 2012 to July, 2018, excess payment amounting to Rs.3,71,599/-, was again made to the petitioner. After her retirement, the petitioner was also paid excess leave encashment amounting to Rs.52,185/-. The amount of leave encashment paid 5 in excess cannot be treated as excess payment arising out of an erroneous pay fixation, therefore, the department has right to adjust or recover the said amount. In the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in paragraphs 10 & 11, is as under:- “10. In State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (Supra) this 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). (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. 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.” 6 6) Having considered the facts discussed above and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the order of recovery of Rs.1,10,082/- and Rs.3,71,599/-, in total 4,81,681/- is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is accordingly quashed. However, the recovery with regard to excess payment of leave encashment is hereby maintained. The amount recovered from the account of the petitioner shall be refunded forthwith alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of recovery till its realization. 7) With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), the instant petition is partly allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Nimmi