1 CGHC010227602021 2026:CGHC:37607 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4931 of 2021 1 - Dev Narayan Divya S/o Late Shyam Lal, Aged About 51 Years Presently Holding The Post Of Assistant Internal Audit And Taxation Officer (Known As Gram Sahayak In The Time Of Appointment) And Posted At Office Of Janpad Panchayat, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through - The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director, Department Of Panchayat, Vikas Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Collector, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 4 - Joint Director, Treasury And Account, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - District Treasury Officer, District Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 6 - Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 7 - Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh 8 - Additional Assistant Development Commissioner, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Kishore Narayan, Advocate For Respondents No. 1-5&8 : Mr. Arpit Agrawal, P.L. For Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, Advocate For Respondent No. 7 : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Advocate 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 21.8.2026 1) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:- 10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 23.11.2020 (Annexure P/4) & 17.12.2020 (Annexure P/5), in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to reckon the date of first time pay scale to be 09.07.2003 and second time pay scale to be 12.07.2013, in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the deduction amount of Rs. 1,74,508/- in view of impugned order 23.11.2020 (Annexure P/4) with market application interest, in the interest of justice. 10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to grant all consequential benefits flowing from first relief clause, in the interest of justice. 10.5 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem and proper in the present circumstances of the case. 2) Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Gram Sahayak (Non-graduate) vide order dated 29.6.1993 and benefit of first time pay-scale was extended to him on 9.7.2003, whereas benefit of second time pay-scale was extended vide order dated 9.8.2017 w.e.f. 9.7.2013. He further submits that respondent No. 7 vide order dated 17.12.2020 contemplated recovery to the tune of 1,74,508/- holding that 3 petitioner was entitled for second time pay-scale from 30.6.2017 and he was wrongly extended the benefit w.e.f. 9.7.2013. He contends that afore-stated recovery amount has been adjusted against the arrears of 7th Pay Commission pursuant to order dated 23.11.2020 whereas petitioner is a class-III employee and there was no misrepresentation on his part, therefore the order of recovery deserves to be quashed. He further contends that petitioner is entitled to receive the benefit of second time pay- scale from year 2013 itself and the issue involved in present case is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others1. 3) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose. They submit that due to inadvertence, benefit of second time pay-scale was extended w.e.f. 9.7.2013 therefore order of recovery was issued on 23.11.2010. They further submit that petitioner was aware of the fact that he was not entitled to receive the afore-stated benefit w.e.f. 9.7.2013 but he kept mum and respondent No. 7 has issued recovery order within reasonable time. They also submit that order impugned is appealable according to the provisions of Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995 and this petition deserves to be dismissed. 4) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents 1. (2015) 4 SCC 334 4 placed on record. 5) Admittedly, petitioner was appointed to the post of Gram Sahayak vide order dated 29.6.1993 and after completion of ten years of service, he was extended the benefit of upgraded first time pay- scale w.e.f. 9.7.2003. Subsequently, benefit of second time pay- scale was extended to the petitioner vide order dated 9.8.2017 w.e.f. 9.7.2013. In the year 2020, respondent No. 7 contemplated recovery holding that benefit of second time pay-scale was wrongly extended to the petitioner w.e.f. 9.7.2013 whereas he became entitled for such benefit from 4.7.2019, therefore the recovery amount was adjusted against the arrears of 7th Pay Commission. 6) With regard to the plea of alternative remedy, a careful perusal of orders dated 23.11.2020 and 17.12.2020 would show that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. It is settled law that writ petition would be maintainable in cases involving violation of principles of natural justice therefore, in my opinion, the plea of alternative remedy is not available to the respondents. 7) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra) observed that:- 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: 5 (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. 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. 8) Admittedly, petitioner is a class-III employee and there was no misrepresentation on the part of petitioner. Further, the order of recovery has been issued without issuance of show-cause notice. 9) Taking into consideration the facts of the present case and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra), orders dated 23.11.2020 and 17.12.2020 are hereby quashed. Respondents are directed to refund the recovered amount to the 6 petitioner with interest @ 6% from the date of recovery till the date of realization. 10) Accordingly, this petition stands allowed. 11) Respondent No. 7 shall now provide the petitioner an opportunity to represent with regard to entitlement of second time pay-scale and based on the decision on the petitioner’s representation the authority concerned shall consider the issue preferably within period of 90 days from the receipt of copy of such representation. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.08.31 14:28:48 +0530