1 CGHC010042322026 2026:CGHC:34545 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1479 of 2026 Chandrakant Harbansh S/o Late Shri Siyaram Harbansh Aged About 41 Years R/o Village And Post - Dongakauhrad, Tahsil And P.S. Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) 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 Chhattisgarh 2 - Inspector General Of Police Chhattisgarh Armed Force (Caf), Police Head Quarter (Phq), Sector 19, Police Station And Post - Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Divisional Joint Director O/o Divisional Joint Director, Treasury, Account And Pension, Bastar Division, Jagadalpur, Distt. Bastar Chhattisgarh 4 - Commandant O7ce Of Commandant, C.T.J.W. College, Kanker, District Kanker Chhattisgarh SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2026.08.06 17:34:47 +0530 2 ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Abhishek Pandey, Advocate with Shri Rishabhdev, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Shri Gary Mukhopadhya, Addl. Advocate General assisted by Ms. Apurva Nigam, Panel Lawyer (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 06.08.2026 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking quashment of recovery order dated 18.11.2025 issued by respondent No. 4 i.e. Commandant, C.T.J.W. College, Kanker (C.G.). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working on the post of Assistant Commander (Platoon Commander) under the o7ce of respondent No. 4, Commandant, Kanker. He submits that during the service tenure of the petitioner, vide order dated 24.10.2025, respondent No. 4 informed the petitioner that upon veri>cation of his service book by respondent No. 3, Divisional Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts and Pension, Jagdalpur, it was found that excess payment had allegedly been made to 3 the petitioner due to erroneous >xation of pay for the period from 01.01.2006 to 01.07.2025, and accordingly, amendment in the petitioner's pay >xation was directed. He further submits that, on the basis of the said veri>cation, respondent No. 4, vide order dated 18.11.2025, directed recovery of the alleged excess amount from the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is holding a Class-III post, and the impugned recovery is wholly impermissible in law. He submits that the alleged excess payment pertains to the period from 01.01.2006 to 01.07.2025, whereas the recovery order has been issued only on 18.11.2025, i.e., after a lapse of more than >ve years. It is contended that the alleged excess payment was made due to erroneous pay >xation by the respondents and not on account of any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner. Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Others v. Ra5q Masih (White Washer) & Others, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, learned counsel submits that recovery of excess payment made by mistake from a Class-III employee, particularly in respect of payments made for a period exceeding >ve years 4 prior to the issuance of the recovery order, is not legally permissible. He also contended that the similar view has been taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others v. Jagdev Singh reported in (2016) 14 SCC 267 and by the Division Bench of this Court in case of State of Chhattisgarh v. Labha Ram Dhruv in Writ Appeal No.264 of 2020 and also in case of State of Chhattisgarh and others v. Roshan Lal Baghel in Writ Appeal No.265 of 2020. He further submits that recovery made by the respondents from the petitioner is erroneous and not permissible and prays that the order of recovery dated 18.11.2025 be set aside and direction be issued to respondents to return back the amount recovered from the petitioner. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the submission made and submits that the order of recovery is just and proper and need no interference. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the documents annexed. 6. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ra5q Masih(supra) has observed thus: 5 “10. In State of Punjab v. Ra>q 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 >ve 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. 6 (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 o7cer to whom the payment was made in the >rst instance was clearly placed on notice that any payment found to have been made in excess would be required to be refunded. The o7cer furnished an undertaking while opting for the revised pay scale. He is bound by the undertaking.” 7. In the aforementioned facts of the case, where undisputedly petitioner is holding Class-III post, recovery of the amount from petitioner is not permissible as observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ra>q Masih (supra). 8. Considering the decision of the Hon’ble supreme Court as also the Division Bench of this Court, impugned order of recovery dated 18.11.2025 (Annexure P-2) is quashed. Respondents are 7 directed to return back the amount, if any, recovered from the petitioner within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of the order. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the above extent. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Shoaib