1 CGHC010048622026 2026:CGHC:36676 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1494 of 2026 Smt. Saroj Sonwani W/o Shri Bhuvneshwar Sonwani Aged About 49 Years Resident Of Ward No.5, Abhanpur Basti District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary School Education, Department Mantralaya Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Public Instruction Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Joint Director Treasury Accounts And Pension, Atal Nagar, Raipur Division Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 4 - District Education Officer Raipur District- Raipur Chhattisgarh, 5 - Block Education Officer Abhanpur District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ritesh Verma, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Shahil Singh, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru) Order on Board 17/08/2026 1. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner has called in question the impugned recovery order dated 25.04.2025 issued by Respondent No.5 ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2026.08.19 16:59:05 +0530 2 whereby a recovery of amount of Rs. 5,00,268/- has been directed against the deceased husband of the petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the widow of late Shri Bhuneshwar Sonwani, who was working as a Teacher (L.B.), Grade-III in Government Primary School, Bharenga, Block Abhanpur, District Raipur. He died in harness on 04.09.2024. After the death of the petitioner's husband, respondent No.5 issued the impugned recovery order dated 25.04.2025, directing recovery of an amount of Rs.5,00,268/- on account of alleged excess payment of salary/allowances made during the service tenure of the deceased employee. As per the recovery order, an amount of Rs.1,81,425/- was allegedly paid in excess for the period from 01.05.2013 to 30.06.2018 and Rs.3,18,843/- for the period from 01.07.2018 to 31.05.2024. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the deceased employee was a Class-III employee and the alleged excess payment was made by the respondents themselves while calculating and disbursing his salary and allowances. There is no allegation of any fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of facts on the part of the deceased employee. It is further submitted that the impugned recovery order was issued only after his death and without affording any opportunity of hearing either to the deceased employee during his lifetime or to the petitioner before fastening the liability upon her. The petitioner has also placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, (2015) 4 SCC 334. 3 4. Per contra, learned State counsel would support the impugned recovery order and would submit that if the excess payment is made to any employee the same is required to be recovered. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. The material placed on record, particularly Annexure P/1, shows that the respondents themselves calculated and paid the salary and allowances to the deceased employee. The alleged excess payment relates to a period extending from 01.05.2013 to 31.05.2024. The deceased employee admittedly expired on 04.09.2024, whereas the recovery order came to be passed thereafter on 25.04.2025. 7. In the facts of the present case, there is no material placed before this Court to indicate that the alleged excess payment was occasioned by any fraud, misrepresentation or concealment attributable to the deceased employee. The payment was made by the department in the course of its own calculation and disbursement of salary and allowances. More importantly, the recovery has been sought to be effected from the widow of a deceased Class-III employee after his death. 8. In State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334, the Supreme 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). 4 or (ii) Recovery from retired employees, 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. 11. The principle enunciated in Proposition (ii) above cannot apply to a situation such as in the present case. In the present case, the officer to whom the payment was made in the first instance was clearly placed on notice that any payment found to have been made in excess would be required to be refunded. The officer furnished an undertaking while opting for the revised pay scale. He is bound by the undertaking." 9. In the considered opinion of this Court, the case of the petitioner squarely falls within the categories carved out by the Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (supra), inasmuch as the deceased husband of the petitioner was holding a Class-III post and the alleged excess payment relates to the period much prior to the retirement of the deceased husband of the petitioner. Consequently, recovery of the alleged excess amount from the petitioner cannot be sustained in law. 5 10. It is a settled principle that while the employer is competent to rectify an erroneous pay fixation, the right to correct such mistake does not, by itself, confer an unfettered right to recover the excess amount from an employee in every case. The power of recovery is subject to the limitations evolved by judicial pronouncements so as to avoid undue hardship to employees who have received payments without any fault attributable to them. 11. In the present case, the deceased husband of the petitioner was a Class- III employee and the recovery has been effected after his retirement & demise. The Supreme Court has consistently held that recovery from retired employees or employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV services is legally impermissible where the excess payment was not obtained by fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the employee. The underlying principle is that an employee is entitled to legitimately presume that the salary paid by the employer has been correctly determined and ordinarily arranges his financial affairs on that basis. Requiring such an employee to refund a substantial amount after retirement, for no fault of his own, would be manifestly harsh, arbitrary and inequitable. 12. This Court also finds that the impugned recovery has been ordered without adherence to the principles of natural justice. The respondents have failed to place any material on record to establish that a show-cause notice was issued or that the petitioner was afforded an effective opportunity of hearing before directing recovery of such a substantial amount from his retiral dues. Since the impugned action visits the 6 petitioner with serious civil consequences, compliance with the principles of natural justice was indispensable. 13. Undoubtedly, public money deserves to be protected; however, where the excess payment has resulted solely from the mistake of the employer, without any contribution from the employee, and the employee has already retired from Class-III service and eventually died, the equities overwhelmingly operate in favour of the employee. The respondents cannot shift the burden of their own administrative lapse upon a retired employee. 14. In the considered opinion of this Court, permitting recovery of Rs.5,00,268/- from the petitioner, being the widow of the deceased Class-III employee, for alleged excess salary/allowances paid during the long period of his service, particularly when there is no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation against him, would be inequitable and would cause undue hardship to the petitioner. The fact that the recovery order was passed after the death of the employee further weighs against sustaining such recovery. 15. Consequently, the impugned recovery order dated 25.04.2025 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No.5, directing recovery of Rs.5,00,268/- from the petitioner on account of alleged excess payment made to her deceased husband, is hereby quashed. The respondents shall not recover the aforesaid amount from the petitioner or adjust the same against the retiral/terminal or family pensionary benefits payable to her on account of the death of her husband. If any amount has already been recovered or adjusted pursuant to the impugned order, the same shall be refunded to 7 the petitioner in accordance with law. The respondents shall also process and release the admissible terminal and family pensionary benefits of the petitioner, if otherwise due, without making any deduction on account of the impugned recovery. 16. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is allowed. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE ashu