1 CGHC010277522026 2026:CGHC:31703 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5607 of 2026 Noman Prasad Kurre S/o Lulu Das Kurre, Aged About 66 Years R/o Karesara, Tehsil Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh . Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Secretary Departmetn Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Directorate Of Public Instruction Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - District Education Officer, Mungeli District Mungeli Chhattisgarh 5 - Block Education Officer, Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Joint Director, Pension And Accounts Treasury Department, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anadi Sharma, Advocate RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.07.25 12:21:04 +0530 2 (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 24/07/2026 1. The petitioner in the instant petition has prayed for the following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call entire record pertaining to case of petitioner from respondent authorities. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned recovery order dated 11.05.2026 (Annexure P-1) issued by the respondent No. 5 in respect of the petitioner. 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice,” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as Shiksha Karmi in the year 1995 and his services were subsequently regularized. Pursuant to the policy decision of the State Government dated 30.06.2018, the services of the petitioner stood absorbed in the School Education Department and he ultimately retired from service on 30.06.2023 on attaining the age of superannuation while holding the post of Headmaster. It is submitted that after almost three years of his retirement, respondent No.5 has issued the impugned recovery order dated 11.05.2026 directing recovery of a sum of Rs.3,55,683/- on the ground that an increment granted to the petitioner with effect from 01.05.2013 had been erroneously extended and consequently withdrawn. 3 3. Learned counsel submits that the increment in question had been sanctioned by the competent authority in accordance with the then prevailing orders and there is neither any allegation nor any material to suggest that the petitioner had obtained the said benefit by practising fraud, misrepresentation or concealment of any material fact. It is contended that the alleged excess payment, if any, occurred solely on account of an act attributable to the employer and not due to any fault of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the impugned recovery order has been passed without issuance of any show-cause notice or affording any opportunity of hearing, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel argues that the petitioner is a retired employee and the alleged excess payment pertains to an increment granted with effect from 01.05.2013, which is much beyond five years preceding the issuance of the recovery order. Therefore, the impugned action is squarely hit by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334, and is liable to be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned recovery order and submits that during scrutiny of the service records it was noticed that the petitioner had been erroneously granted an increment with effect from 01.05.2013, resulting in excess payment of salary. Consequently, the respondents withdrew the said increment and determined that an amount of Rs.3,55,683/- had become recoverable from the petitioner. It is submitted that the respondents have merely sought recovery of the excess amount paid from the Government exchequer and, therefore, no 4 illegality has been committed in issuing the impugned order. 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 petition is whether the respondents were justified in directing recovery of Rs.3,55,683/- from the petitioner, a retired Headmaster, by withdrawing an increment allegedly granted with effect from 01.05.2013, after nearly three years of his retirement, particularly when there is no allegation that the petitioner obtained the benefit by practising fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of material facts. A further issue which falls for consideration is whether the impugned recovery order could have been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and whether the same is sustainable in view 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 wrongfully 5 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 the material placed on record, it is not in dispute that the petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2023, whereas the impugned recovery order came to be issued only on 11.05.2026. It is equally undisputed that the alleged excess payment arises from withdrawal of an increment which had been granted with effect from 01.05.2013, more than a decade prior to the issuance of the impugned order. The respondents have not alleged that the petitioner secured the said increment by practising fraud, making any misrepresentation or suppressing any material fact. Rather, the benefit had been extended by the competent authority during the petitioner's service tenure. Thus, if any excess payment has been made, the same appears to be attributable to the employer and not to any act or omission on the part of the petitioner. 6 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). The petitioner is admittedly a retired employee and the alleged excess payment relates to a period far beyond five years preceding the issuance of the recovery order. In the absence of any allegation of fraud or misrepresentation, recovery of the alleged excess amount from the petitioner cannot be sustained in law. 10. Apart from the aforesaid, the record does not disclose that any show- cause notice was issued or any effective opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before issuance of the impugned recovery order. The respondents have thus fastened a substantial monetary liability upon the petitioner without complying with the basic requirements of the principles of natural justice. On this ground also, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned recovery order dated 11.05.2026 (Annexure P-1) deserves to be and is hereby set aside. 12. Consequently, if any amount has already been recovered from the petitioner pursuant to the impugned order, the same shall be refunded to him within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Needless to observe, this order shall not preclude the respondents from taking such action as may be permissible in law, subject to the limitations laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334, and after complying with the principles of natural 7 justice. 13. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE 𝓡𝓪𝓱𝓾𝓵