1 CGHC010084572022 2026:CGHC:37862 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1685 of 2022 1 - Alok Kumar Roy S/o Shri Anadi Nath Roy Aged About 62 Years Retired Deputy General Manager, C.G. State Dairy Co -Operative Federation Ltd. R/o B -16/13, Sect -3, Udaya Society, Tatibandh, Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Krishi, Pashudhan Vikash, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Director Directorate Of Local Fund Audit, Block - 1, 2nd Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chhattisgarh State Dairy Co - Operative Federation Ltd. Through Its Managing Director, Village Urla, Post Bmy Charoda, P.S. Charoda, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Shri T.L. Bareth,P.L. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Om Prakash Sahu, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 24/08/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue NIRMALA RAO 2 writ (s) /order(s)/direction(s) against and quash, set-aside the impugned order dated 10.02.2022 (Annexure-P/1) issued by the respondent No.3 and further quash the impugned letter dated 24.12.2021 (Annexure-P/2) issued by the respondent no.2 by declaring both are bad in the eyes of law. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent federation to immediately return the entire recovered amounts of the petitioner with interest @18%. 10.3 The Hon'ble High Court may kindly be please issuing the suitable direction to the respondent state to take action against the Managing Director of the respondent federation, who had habitual to harass and deprived the retired person from his legal right without any justification. 10.4 That, the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be please to imposed the heavy cost of Rs. 20 lakhs upon the respondent federation on account of the harassment of the retired person without any justification. And also awarded the cast of litigation arise due to illegality committed by the respondents. 10.5 The Hon'ble court may be pleased to issue writ/writs/order/orders/direction/directions/relief/relief's, which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, who was working as an Assistant General Manager under the Chhattisgarh State Dairy Cooperative Federation Limited, retired from service on 31.08.2019. He would contend that the petitioner approached the respondent authorities for payment of gratuity, whereupon an order of recovery of Rs.79,288/- + Rs.34,600/- was issued on 10.02.2022. He would contend that the pay scale of the petitioner had been wrongly fixed on the higher side with effect from 01.04.2006 and that the mistake continued for a considerable period, resulting in excess payment being made to the petitioner. He would submit that the 3 petitioner had already retired from service on 31.08.2019 and that the order of recovery was issued after his retirement. He would further submit that the recovery order issued against similarly situated employees has already been quashed in WPS No.6218 of 2023 and other connected matters. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 would oppose the petition. He would contend that the benefit was extended to the petitioner due to a mistake and, when the said fact was brought to the notice of the department, an order of recovery was passed. He would contend that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State would support the submissions made by learned counsel for respondent No.3. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334, while dealing with the issue of recovery of excess payment from employees, has held in paragraph 18 as under: “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 herein above, 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 4 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. In the present case, the petitioner is working as an Assistant General Manager, and the impugned recovery order has been issued on account of excess payment arising from the erroneous fixation of pay. The petitioner was never at fault, nor was he involved in the process of fixation of pay. The recovery is being made after more than three years from the date of such payment. Therefore, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by clauses (i) and (iii) of paragraph 18 of the aforesaid judgment in Rafiq Masih (supra). 8. In view of the above discussion and in light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (supra), the recovery order dated 10.02.2022 (Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed. 9. As no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner and there was no misrepresentation on his part with regard to the grant of the revised pay scale, the recovery order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is accordingly quashed. The amount recovered from the petitioner shall be refunded forthwith, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of recovery till its realization. 5 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi