1 2026:CGHC:1004 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5130 of 2022 1 - Dinesh Kumar Sahu (Died) Through LRs. as Per Hon’ble Court Order Dated- 12-02- 2025 And 16-04-2025. 1.1 - Jethiya Bai Sahu W/o Late Shri Dinesh Kumar Sahu Aged About 63 Years R/o Ward No. 20, Near Pani Tanki, Jarhagaon, P.S., Tahsil And District- Mungeli (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) 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, Bilaspur Range, Near Nehru Chowk, District-Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3 - Divisional Joint Director O/o Divisional Joint Director, Treasury Account And Pension, Near Collector Office, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - Superintendent Of Police (Sp) O/o Superintendent Of Police, Mungeli, District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Abhishek Pandey and Ms. Varsha Sharma, Advocates For Respondent/State : Shri Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer 2 ({Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput}) Order on Board 07/01/2026 Following relief (s) has been claimed in this petition - “(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 Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/quash the impugned calculation chart of pay recovery and recovery order of petitioner issued by respondent No.4 S.P., Mungeli (Annexure P/2). (iii) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct respondent authorities to refund the whole deducted amount i.e. Rs.2,88,736/- to the petitioner with interest of 10% which has been deducted from the petitioner due to impugned recovery order issued by respondent No.4 S.P. Mungeli. (iv) That this Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition was filed by the original petitioner namely Dinesh Kumar Sahu who was working as Assistant Sub-Inspector with the respondents and retired on attaining the age of superannuation. After retirement of the original petitioner, the respondents initiated recovery proceedings of excess payment made on account of wrong fixation of pay scale from the month of February, 1986 till his retirement and thus, recovered an amount of Rs.2,88,736/-. He submits that during the pendency of the writ petition, the original petitioner passed away and his wife has been substituted as legal representative of the writ petitioner. He submits that the recovery was made after retirement of the petitioner and the petitioner being class-III employee cannot be subjected to any recovery in the light of judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and ors etc. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc., 2015 4 SCC 334. He further submits that the judgment of Rafiq Masih (supra) has been subsequently followed by Hon’ble Supreme Court 3 in the case of Thomas Daniel vs. State of Kerala and others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine 536 and Jogeswar Sahoo & ors. vs. The District Judge, Cuttack & ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 724. Thus, he prays that the impugned recovery may be set aside and the amount so recovered may be returned to the petitioner. 3. Learned State counsel submits that as the petitioner was paid excess amount on account of wrong fixation of pay, the recovery was made. However, he is not in a position to dispute that the original petitioner was a class-III employee. Therefore, there is not illegality or irregularity in the recovery made. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. There is no dispute to the fact that the original petitioner was a class-III employee and retired on 28/02/2022 on attaining the age of superannuation. It is also not in dispute that the recovery chart which is filed as Annexure P/2 was issued after retirement of the original petitioner and recovery was made after his retirement. It is not a case of the respondents that excess payment was made to the original petitioner on account of his misrepresentation or fraud. The issue involved in this case is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) wherein the Supreme Court has laid down certain situations where it has been categorically held that it would be impressible under law for the employer to make recovery. The situations as envisaged in the said judgment are as under: “(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 4 arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.” 6. The judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) has also been followed with approval in the case of Thomas Daniel (supra) and Jogeswar Sahoo (supra). In the light of above, the recovery so made cannot stand and thus liable to be set aside. As submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire amount has been recovered, it is directed that the same shall be refunded back to the petitioner within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Sd/- ({Sachin Singh Rajput}) JUDGE Deepti DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Digitally signed by DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Date: 2026.01.08 17:16:55 +0530