1 CGHC010291942022 2026:CGHC:34220 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5862 of 2022 * - Hukum Chand Sharma S/o Late Shri Mohit Prasad Sharma Aged About 63 Years R/o Shri Vihar Colony, Hafa, Bilaspur, Police Station - Sakari, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home And Police, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Director General Of Police Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - The Superintendent Of Police Korba Chhattisgarh 4 - The Divisional Joint Director Fund Account And Pension, Bilaspur, Division, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Rishabh Chandra Singh Deo, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 05/08/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to this case from possession of the respondents for it’s kind perusal; 10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ/order/direction and quash/set-aside the order dated 08.12.2021 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondent no. 3; 10.3 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ/order/direction and quash/set-aside the order dated 31.01.2022 (Annexure P/3) issued by the respondent Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.08.06 16:32:04 +0530 2 no. 4 to the extent a sum of Rs.1,65,996/- has been directed to be recovered from the petitioner. 10.4 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ/order/direction commanding the respondents to refund Rs.1,65,996/- recovered from the petitioner with suitable interest; and 10.5 Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, who was working on the post of Head Constable, got retired from services on 31.08.2021. He would further submit that after retirement, an order of recovery has been issued by the respondent No. 3 on 08.12.2021 of Rs.1,65,996/-. He would contend that the order of recovery has been passed on the ground that pay scale of the petitioner was wrongly fixed at higher side with effect from 01.01.1996 and it continued till date of retirement. He would submit that there was no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner; the petitioner was Class-III employee and order of recovery has been passed after 25 years. He would submit that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered with the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme in the matter of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Rishabh Chandra Singh Deo, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents would oppose. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. Having considered the fact that the pay scale of the petitioner was fixed at higher side by the department in the year 1996 and said practice continued till 2021 and order of recovery has been issued in the year 2022 after retirement. The petitioner was Class-III employee and order 3 of recovery has been issued after retirement and there was no misrepresentation or fraud and it would be very difficult for the petitioner to refund the excess payment made to him after retirement. 6. In the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para-10 which reads as under:- “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.” 7. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts and the law laid down in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra), the order of recovery dated 31.01.2022 (Annexure P- 3) and order dated 08.12.2021 (Annexure P- 1) are hereby quashed. The respondent authorities are directed to 4 refund amount of recovery (if any recovered) with interest @ 6 % per annum from date of recovery till its realization. 8. Consequently, the petition is allowed at admission stage. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti