1 CGHC010050282026 2026:CGHC:32410 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1831 of 2026 1 - Dinesh Kumar Dubey S/o. Late Shri Kamta Prasad Dubey, Aged About 63 Years R/o. Kududand, Milan Chowk, Near Rajesh Kirana Store, Bilaspur, P.S.- Civil Lines, Tahsil And Distt. Bilaspur C.G. ... Petitioner 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 C.G. 2 - Divisional Joint Director, O/o. Divisional Joint Director, Treasury- Accounts And Pension, Near Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur Division, Distt. Bilaspur C.G. 3 - Senior Superintendent Of Police, O/o. Senior Superintendent Of Police, Near Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur, District. Bilaspur C.G. ... Respondents (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocates For State : Ms. Apurva Nigam, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru Order On Board 28.07.2026 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2026.07.31 10:54:52 +0530 2 “(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 order of amendment in pay fixation dated 23.06.2025 and impugned show cause notice for recovery dated 24.06.2025 issued by Respondent No. 3, Sr. SP, Bilaspur (Annexure P/1 and P / 2 ) . (iii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the impugned recovery order dated 01.07.2025 of petitioner for an amount of Rs. 2,82,122/- issued by Respondent No. 2 Divisional Joint Director, Treasury-Account and Pension, Bilaspur (Annexure P / 3 ) . (iv) That, the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent authorities to refund the whole deducted amount to the petitioner i.e. Rs. 2,82,122/- along with the interest of 18% per annum which has been deducted due to the above mentioned impugned recovery order dated 01.07.2025 issued by Respondent No. 2. (v) 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 petitioner retired from the post of Head Constable on 30.6.2025 and on the next day i.e. 01/07/2025, respondent No.2 Divisional Joint Director O/o Divisional Joint Director, Treasury - Accounts and Pension, Bilaspur Division issued impugned order stating that petitioner has been paid extra money as salary and hence he would have to face deduction in final payment or will have to pay difference amount in cash. Thereafter, an amount of Rs.2,82,122/- 3 from Final Gratuity payment, and remaining amount to be paid to petitioner. As forcefully deduction has been done without giving any opportunity of hearing petitioner's prayer and as extra payment done years ago was not petitioner's fault making such deduction arbitrary, illegal and erroneous and prayed to refund Rs.2,82,122/- along with interest. Learned counsel further submits that according to various judgments of this Court and the Supreme Court, recovery from Class-III employees is not permissible though the petitioner was working on the post of Head Constable in District Bilaspur, which is a Class-III post. In support of his submission he places reliance upon decision in case of State of Punjab & ors vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & ors, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents vehemently opposes the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner had signed undertaking that in the event any excess payment is found, the same may be recovered from his gratuity. Therefore, he is bound by his undertaking. Excess amount paid to the petitioner would amount to undue enrichment. Hence, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality and does not require any interference by this Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with writ petition. 4 5. From the arguments which is advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties it is not in dispute that petitioner stood retired from post of Head Constable which is Class-III post. 6. In case of Rafiq Masih (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court considering the issue of recovery of amount paid in excess has summarized the situations where in certain cases, even recovery from the employee by the employer would not be permissible in law. In Para-18 it was observed thus:- “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 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 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. 7. So far as the undertaking given by the employee/petitioner is concerned, a Division Bench of this Court has consider this aspect in Writ Appeal No.265 of 2020 in the matter of State of Chhattisgarh and others vs. Roshan Lal decided on 9.12.2021 and held in para 14 and 15 as under: "14. While passing the order dated 22.09.2021 in State of Chhattisgarh & Others vs. Labha Ram Dhruv and the batch of cases, the Division Bench of this Court had observed as follows: “9. In the case at hand, the Revision of Pay Rules, 2009 and 2017 do not make any enabling provision reserving option for the employer to seek refund of the amount paid in excess, by making the employee to furnish an undertaking. Even if we conclude, for the sake of arguments, that even in the absence of enabling provision under the Rules, undertaking given by the employee would operate, the fact remains that against the classes of employees against whom recovery would be impermissible in law, as held 6 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (Supra), recovery from the employees belonging to Class- III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service) would still be impermissible in law. Meaning thereby that even when undertaking is submitted by the employee, but he otherwise belongs to Class-III and Class-IV service, and the amount has been paid more than 5 years back, the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (Supra) would still hold the field in favour of such employees, because the judgment in the matter of Rafiq Masih (Supra) has not been overruled, but only clarified, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its later judgment in the matter of Jagdev Singh, Supra. 10. Insofar as, the order passed by this Court in the matter of Pramila Mandavi, referred to above, is concerned, a plain reading of the order would reveal that the facts as to whether the Revision of Pay Rules makes an enabling provision to obtain undertaking and thereafter entitles the employer to make recovery has not been considered. Similarly, the effect of judgment in the matter of Rafiq Masih (Supra) making recovery of an amount paid to Class-III or Class-IV employees has also not been dealt with. Therefore, the judgment passed in the Writ Appeals is distinguishable on the strength of law laid down by conjoint reading of the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Rafiq Masih and Jagdev Singh (Supra). 15. A perusal of the above paragraphs would go 7 to show that the Division Bench has recorded that in Pramila Mandavi (supra), this Court did not consider as to whether the Revision of Pay Rules, 2009 enables the authorities to obtain an undertaking, permitting the employer to make recovery and also did not advert to the effect of judgment in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) laying down that no recovery shall be effected from employees belonging to Class-III and Class- IV service (or Group-C and Group-D service). It was also noted that even if it is held that an undertaking would operate in absence of an enabling provision under the Rules to take an undertaking whereby the employee undertakes to refund back any excess payment, no recovery can be effected from the employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group- and Group-D service) in terms of Rafiq Masih (supra) and also in case the amount sought to be recovered had been continued to be paid for a period in excess of 5 year." 8. The petitioner has also referred to the order dated 21.1.2025 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.51 of 2025 in the matter of Chhattisgarh State Dairy Co-operative Federation Ltd. vs. Radhe Lal Sinha and others and in the said matter, Hon'ble Division Bench settled the law that recovery from Class-III employee and also the recovery from retired employee is impermissible. 9. Considering the aforesaid view already taken and decided by the Division Bench of this Court, I am fortified by the view taken by 8 the Division Bench and the undertaking given by the employee/petitioner would of no consequence. 10. The petitioner is a Class-III employee. Excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud of the petitioner. The impugned recovery order was issued after his retirement. Hence, in the light of above authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court coupled with the fact of this Writ Petition, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the same deserves to be allowed. 11. Therefore, the impugned recovery order passed in the instant case is quashed and set aside. If any amount is recovered pursuant to the impugned recovery order, the same shall be refunded to the petitioner within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The admissible retiral dues which has not been paid to the petitioner, if any, shall also be released by the respondents within the aforesaid period of 90 days. 12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Amardeep