1 CGHC010304792026 2026:CGHC:34717 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5995 of 2026 Kali Ram Kurre S/o Anjora Kurre Aged About 64 Years R/o Village - Ramakapa, Tahsil - Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Joint Director Education Division, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 3. Joint Director Treasury Accounts And Pension, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4. District Education Officer Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh 5. Block Education Officer Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Pramod Ramteke, Advocate For Respondent/ State : Ms. Poorva Tiwari, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 07/08/2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who retired from service on 30.06.2024, has called in question the order dated 05.06.2026 (Annexure P-1), whereby recovery has been directed of the amount of gratuity allegedly paid to the petitioner in excess of his entitlement at the time of retirement. JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.08.07 17:11:29 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others {(2015) 4 SCC 334} wherein it has been specifically stated that the recovery of excess paid amount to an employee for no fault on his part is impermissible and that recovery from retired employee after one year of retirement is not permissible therefore, the respondents are not entitled to effect recovery after the expiry of one year from the date of retirement. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the present case does not fall within the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (supra). It is contended that the impugned order merely seeks recovery of the excess amount of gratuity which was inadvertently paid to the petitioner at the time of retirement and, therefore, the embargo laid down in Rafiq Masih is not attracted to the facts of the present case. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. A perusal of Annexure P-1 reveals that at the time of retirement the petitioner was paid gratuity in excess of his admissible entitlement. The impugned order merely directs recovery of the excess amount so paid. 5. Mere administrative error does not automatically extinguish the right of the employer to recover public money, particularly where the employee was aware of the correct entitlement. If an amount beyond the sanctioned entitlement has been paid, the employer is under a corresponding obligation to safeguard the public 3 exchequer. Equity operates in favour of an innocent employee but cannot be extended to permit unjust enrichment at the cost of public revenue. 6. It is noteworthy to mention here that excess payment of public money cannot ordinarily be retained merely because the overpayment resulted from a bona fide mistake of the employer. Public funds do not belong either to the officer responsible for the erroneous disbursement or to the recipient who received the excess amount. Any amount paid or received without the authority of law carries with it a corresponding obligation on the recipient to refund the same, failing which it would amount to unjust enrichment. 7. The recovery of excess payment is the general rule, whereas exemption from recovery constitutes a narrow exception, to be invoked only in exceptional factual situations where equitable considerations outweigh the State's right to recover public money. Consequently, in every case involving recovery of excess payment, the Court is required to examine whether the employee falls within the limited equitable exceptions recognised by law; failing such circumstances, recovery cannot be interdicted merely because the excess payment was occasioned by an administrative or bona fide mistake. 8. The Supreme Court in Chandi Prasad Uniyal & Others v. State of Uttarakhand & Others, (2012) 8 SCC 417, held that any amount paid/received without authority of law can always be recovered. It further held that law imposes an obligation on payee 4 to repay the money lest, it would amount unjust enrichment. 9. So far as the exception laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (Supra) is concerned, the same is distinguishable to the facts of the present case. 10. It is pertinent to mention here that when inadvertently, the petitioner was paid excess amount of gratuity, it was the duty of the petitioner to have pointed out the said mistake to the Department. However, the petitioner failed to do so. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to retain the said amount with him. 11. Consequently, in view of the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned recovery order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, perversity or violation of statutory provisions warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. 12. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is liable to be and hereby dismissed. Sd/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Jyoti