1 / 5 2026:CGHC:6262 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 266 of 2025 • Baldau Prasad Dewangan S/o Babu Lal Dewangan Aged About 62 Years R/o Lokhandi Road, Bajrang Chowk, Mangla, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Director Directorate Of Higher Education, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Additional Director Directorate Of Higher Education, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.) 4. The Principal Government E. Raghavendra Rao Postgraduate Science College, Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioners : Ms. Pranoti Das, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Aditya Tiwari, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 04/02/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs. “10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/ set-aside the impugned recovery order dated 19.12.2024. 10.2 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to forthwith release the retiral dues in favour of petitioner and also pay pension in favour of petitioner. 10.3 That any other relief/ order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may be given.” PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 5 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was initially working as Lab Technician. After attaining age of superannuation, he stood retire from the services on 30.06.2024. After retirement, respondent-department at the time of clearing retiral dues of petitioner has issued a letter dated 19.12.2024 mentioning that excess payment has been made to petitioner which is recoverable from petitioner and therefore petitioner was directed to deposit the said amount in government treasury through Challan. It is contention of learned counsel for petitioner that recovery of excess amount is sought from petitioner after his retirement who was Class-III employee. In support of his submission she places reliance upon decision in case of State of Punjab & ors vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & ors, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 and in the case of Thomas Daniel vs. State of Kerala reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 536. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that after receiving objection from the Accounts and Pensions Department, after verification of record, order/ letter Annexure P-1 has been issued upon finding that petitioner had been paid excess payment. He further submits that petitioner has given consent for refund of the excess amount paid to him either by adjustment or by depositing the same. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. From the arguments which is advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties it is not in dispute that petitioner stood retired from post of Lab Technician which is Class-III post. 6. Recovery which is sought from petitioner is towards excess payment made to him during the period from December 1986 to June 2024. It is not the case of respondents that excess payment is made to petitioner due to misrepresentation or suppression of fact or any fraud played by petitioner with respondent-department. 3 / 5 7. In case of Rafiq Masih (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court considering the issue of recovery of amount paid in excess has summarized the situations where in certain cases, even recovery from the employee by the employer would not be permissible in law. Further in the case of Thomas Daniel (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered its earlier decision in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) and set aside the order of recovery from the appellant therein. In Para-18 of the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) it was observed thus:- “18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers 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. 8. So far submission of learned counsel for the State that petitioner has given consent for refund of the excess amount paid to him either by adjustment or by depositing the same pursuant to undertaking given by petitioner, perusal of Annexure R-2 enclosed along with return filed by State would show that consent from the petitioner is obtained on 09.10.2024 and petitioner stood retired on 30.06.2024. 4 / 5 9. In the aforementioned facts of case, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has submitted the consent letter/ undertaking for refund of the amount under the pressure and threat that he may not be paid retiral dues, cannot be overlooked. 10. In case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others vs. Jagdev Singh, reported in (2016) 14 SCC 267, Hon’ble Supreme Court though had considered the issue with regard to the undertaking, however, Para-10 (i) of the decision in case of Rafiq Masih (supra) has not been overruled or interfered. This aspect is also considered by the Division Bench of this Court in WA No.264/2020 (State of CG vs Labha Ram Dhruv) wherein it was observed thus: “9. In the case at hand, the Revision of Pay Rules, 2009 and 2017 do not make any enabling provision reserving option for the employer to seek refund of the amount paid in excess, by making the employee to furnish an undertaking. Even if we conclude, for the sake of arguments, that even in the absence of enabling provision under the Rules, undertaking given by the employee would operate, the fact remains that against the classes of employees against whom recovery would be impermissible in law, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (Supra), recovery from the employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service) would still be impermissible in law. Meaning thereby that even when undertaking is submitted by the employee, but he otherwise belongs to Class-III and Class-IV service, and the amount has been paid more than 5 years back, the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (Supra) would still hold the field in favour of such employees, because the judgment in the matter of Rafiq Masih (Supra) has not been overruled, but only clarified, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its later judgment in the matter of Jagdev Singh, Supra” 5 / 5 11. From perusal of the above, it is clear that the recovery from the employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV category (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service) is held to be impermissible in law. Meaning thereby that even if undertaking is submitted by the employee, but he otherwise belongs to Class-III or Class-IV service, recovery of excess amount paid from him/her is impermissible and that too after retirement from the services. 12. In the case at hand, admittedly, petitioner was working on the post of Class- III in the Education Department and stood retired on 30th June 2024. It is also not the case of respondents that petitioner had received excess payment by practicing fraud or by making misrepresentation. Thus, petitioner cannot be compelled to return the amount which has been paid by the respondents on their own without any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of petitioner. The consent if any given by petitioner is of 09.10.2024 ie., after the date of retirement of petitioner from service and even otherwise petitioner retired as Class-III employee. 13. In light of above decisions and in the given facts and circumstances of the case, in the considered opinion of this Court, the respondents cannot be permitted to effect recovery from the petitioner of the amount paid in excess and being so, recovery against petitioner is not sustainable. 14. Consequently, writ petition is allowed and the impugned recovery order Annexure P-1 dated 19.12.2024 is hereby quashed. Respondents are directed to return back the amount, if any, deducted from the retiral dues of petitioner with respect to recovery of excess payment, within a further period of 03 months from the date of receipt of order passed by this Court. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) pwn JUDGE