1 2026:CGHC:7722 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3373 of 2025 Smt. Bhagwantin Bai W/o Shri Tilak Ram Dewangan Aged About 69 Years R/o Village- Banbaghera, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Health, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya New Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Treasury Account And Pension, Atal Nagar, Raipur District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief Medical And Health Officer Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Branch Manager Bank Of Maharashtra, At Branch Office Ghumka, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Gopal Prasad Mathur, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 to 3 : Ms. Shailja Shukla, G.A. For Respondent No. 4 Mr. Anumesh Shrivastava, Advocate PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE PARTH PRATEEM SAHU Order on Board 11/02/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking following reliefs: “(I) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash Annexure-P/1 and restrain the respondent from making further recovery and to refund the recovered amount with 18% interest, in the interest of justice. (ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case including cost of the petition, may also be granted” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that husband of the petitioner Late Tilak Ram Dewangan, was working on the post of Assistant stood retired from service w.e.f. 31.12.2006 (as per pleadings in writ petition 21.12.2006). After retirement, husband of the petitioner was being paid pension as per service rules and he died on 06.01.2009. After death of the husband of petitioner, she was being paid family pension as per rules. On 05.04.2025, respondent bank has issued a notice of recovery for a sum of Rs. 11,57,424/- on the ground that excess pension is paid for the period from 03.12.2013 to 28.02.2025. He contended that the husband of the petitioner was Class-III employee and after his retirement he was paid pension, who also died on 06.01.2009 and therefore, recovery as sought for by the respondent bank is not permissible in the eyes of law. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. 3 reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in WA No. 46 of 2019 (Branch Manager, Allahabad Bank v. Smt. Sangita Mishra & Another) decided on 16.12.2021. 3. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 4 opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that along with the reply respondent-bank has placed on record, undertaking given by husband of petitioner during his lifetime Annexure-P/3 declaring that if any excess payment is made due to mistake in fixation of pension then the respondents may recover excess payment if any. Similar undertaking was given by the petitioner herein on 20.02.2009. He contended that in view of the undertaking given by the deceased employee as also by the petitioner, now she is estopped from challenging the proceedings of recovery initiated by respondent-bank vide Annexure-P/1. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of High Court of Punjab & Harayana and Others v. Jagdev Singh, reported in (2016) 14 SCC 267 and in the matter of Jagdish Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar and Others, reported in (2024) SCC OnLine SC 1909. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. The status of late husband of the petitioner to be Class-III employee is not disputed by counsel for the respondent No. 4. He submits that the extra pension amount has been paid to the petitioner during period from 03.12.2013 to 28.02.2025. 6. The status of the petitioner is of a widow aged about 69 years and is dependent only on the family pension. Recovery of the amount from small 4 monthly pension which is to be paid to the petitioner will be harsh upon the petitioner and if any deduction is permitted from the family pension paid to the petitioner it will be difficult for the petitioner to survive when petitioner being old aged lady may be suffering with the old age disease. 7. It is not the case of respondents that excess amount is paid to the petitioner towards the family pension because of her misrepresentation and therefore, in the facts of case where excess payment is made by the respondent No. 4 due to some clerical mistake of any of the employee then the petitioner who is a widow lady dependent on family pension would not to made suffer and to face hardship. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of ITC Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2011) 7 SCC 493, has observed in Para 108 as under: “108. We may give an example from service jurisprudence, where a principle of equity is frequently invoked to give relief to an employee in somewhat similar circumstances. Where the pay or other emoluments due to an employee is determined and paid by the employer, and subsequently the employer finds, (usually on audit verification) that on account of wrong understanding of the applicable rules by the officers implementing the rules, excess payment is made, courts have recognized the need to give limited relief in regard to recovery of past excess payments, to reduce hardship to the innocent employees, who benefited from such wrong interpretation.” 8. In the case of Rafiq Masih (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in Para 18 as under: “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 5 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. 9. In the aforementioned decisions, Hon’ble Supreme Court as categorically held that recovery of any amount from Class III and Class IV employees to be impermissible. In the case in hand the status of the petitioner is not of an employee but is a widow of a Class-III employee and is surviving on the family pension amount only. 10. In case of Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 536 (decided on 02-05-2022), Hon’ble Supreme Court relying upon its earlier decision in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) has observed that the State cannot recover excess amount paid to the ex-employee after the delay of 10 years. 11. The decision in case of Jagdev Singh (supra) relied upon by counsel for the petitioner is the case of recovery of the excess payment made to an employee, however, has not overruled the observation made in case of Rafiq 6 Masih (supra) that “recovery from employees belonging to Class III and Class IV Service (or Group C and Group D service) would be impermissible in law. The said decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rafiq Masih (supra) still holds the field. 12. In case of Sangita Mishra (supra), Division Bench of this Court has considered recovery from an employee who has given undertaking and has observed thus: “22. Assuming that the undertaking given by the petitioner is applicable, then also, in our considered opinion, as her husband indisputably belonged to Class-III service, recovery from the petitioner is not permissible in terms of proposition No. (i) in paragraph 18 of the judgment rendered in Rafiq Masih (supra). It is also to be recorded that in Jagdev Singh (supra), in the context of an undertaking given by an employee, the proposition No. (ii) was only held to be not applicable.” 13. In the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, I am of the view that the recovery permitted from the petitioner would cause great hardship to the petitioner, who is innocent widow of the deceased employee and therefore, recovery sought to be made by the petitioner from her pension is not sustainable. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the recovery notice dated 05.04.2025 (Annexure-P/1) is hereby quashed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) JUDGE Saurabh