1 CGHC010407602018 2026:CGHC:34222 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8492 of 2018  Ganpati Singh Dhruw S/o Ramkhilawan Dhruw Aged About 45 Years Presently Posted As Assistant Teacher (L.B.) At Government Primary School Barduli, Mungeli. R/o Village - Bhathlikala, Tahsil Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. District Education Officer Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 3. Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 4. Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 5. Block Education Officer Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Zainab Vanak, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 2 5.8.2026 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:- 10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 18.10.2018 (P/1) issued by the CEO. Zila Panchayat Mungeli. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to grant the benefit of pay-scale already been granted to the petitioner. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities, to pay back the different of reduced amount with an appropriate interest from September 2018 to - uptill now. 10.4 That, any other relief(s) which the Hon'ble Court deems fit & proper may kindly be pleased to granted in favour of the petitioner; 2) Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Mungeli vide order dated 18.3.1999 and he is currently working on the post of Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) under the School Education Department. She further submits that after completion of ten years of service, benefit of upgraded pay-scale was extended to the petitioner according to circular dated 2.11.2011 w.e.f. 18.1.2012. She contends that subsequently, the circular dated 2.11.2011 was withdrawn by the State Government and resultantly, order of recovery was issued on 18.10.2018. She further contends that petitioner is a class-III employee and there was no misrepresentation on the part of petitioner, therefore the order of 3 recovery deserves to be quashed. She argues that issue involved in present case is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others1. 3) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that due to mistake, excess payment has been made to the petitioner from January, 2012 to August, 2018 and when this mistake came into knowledge of respondent authorities, order of recovery was issued. He further submits there is no infirmity in the orders impugned and this petition deserves to be dismissed. 4) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5) Admittedly, petitioner was appointed to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III vide order dated 18.3.1999 and after completion of ten years of service, he was extended the benefit of upgraded pay- scale according to the circular dated 2.11.2011 w.e.f. 18.1.2012. However, the said circular was withdrawn by the State Government on 17.5.2013 and subsequently, order of recovery was issued on 18.10.2018. 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 1. (2015) 4 SCC 334 4 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. 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) Admittedly, petitioner is a class-III employee and there was no misrepresentation on the part of petitioner. Further, the order of recovery has been issued after period of 06 years. 8) Taking into consideration the facts of the present case and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra), 5 order of recovery dated 18.10.2018 (Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed. Respondents are directed to refund the amount if already recovered from the petitioner with interest @ 6%. Since the department has withdrawn the circular dated 2.11.2011, petitioner would not be entitled to receive benefit arising out of such circular furthermore. 9) Accordingly, this petition stands disposed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.08.06 14:38:13 +0530