1 CGHC010043352017 2026:CGHC:34829 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3481 of 2017  Hetram Rana S/o Late Shri Bhajan Rana, Aged About 56 Years Working As Head Master, At Govt. Primary School Singhanpur, Post Singhanpur, Tahsil Basna, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2. Accountant General Of Chhattisgarh, Zero Point, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Block Education Officer, Basna, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Adv. along with Mr. Satya Kumar Mandloi, Adv. For State/ Respondents No.1&3 : Mr. Anil Pandey, G.A. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 7.8.2026 2 1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs :- (i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash recovery order dated 09.06.2016 (Annexure P-1) and recovered amount may be refunded 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) Facts of the present case are that petitioner, who was working on the post of Head Master in School Education Department was served with a recovery order to the tune of Rs.7,02,488/- on 9.6.2016 on the ground that he withdrew excess amount from his GPF account on various dates. At the time of issuance of recovery order, petitioner was in service. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before issuance of recovery order and recovery from a retired class-III employee is not permissible as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others1. He prays to quash the order dated 9.6.2016. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents would oppose. They submit that recovery order was issued much prior to the retirement of petitioner on account of excess withdrawal from GPF account. They further submit that present is not a case where salary/ pay-scale of the petitioner was 1.(2015) 4 SCC 334 3 wrongly fixed by the State authorities rather petitioner himself has withdrawn excess amount from his GPF account therefore order impugned is just and proper and this petition deserves to be dismissed. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra) observed that:- 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. 4 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. 7) According to Rafiq Masih (supra), recovery is not permissible if the employee belongs to Class-III or Class-IV service and is due to retire within one year or when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years or salary/ pay-scale has been wrongly fixed by the State authorities. 8) In the present case, recovery order was issued on the ground that petitioner withdrew excess amount from GPF account and at that point of time, petitioner was in service. In this petition, there is no averment to the effect that petitioner did not withdraw the excess amount from GPF account and it is not a case where salary or pay- scale of the petitioner was wrongly fixed. Therefore, in my opinion, the law laid down by the Apex Court in Rafiq Masih (supra) would not apply in the instant case and the impugned order dated 9.6.2016 appears to be just and proper and there is no scope of interference. 9) Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.08.11 14:27:46 +0530