1 CGHC010161482021 2026:CGHC:38427 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3452 of 2021 1 - Anand Kumar Pathak (Died) Through Lrs Smt. Sushma Pathak W/o- Late Shri Anand Kumar Pathak, Aged About 64 Years, R/o- Plot No. 52, 53, Arpa Exotica, Koni, Bilaspur Police Station- Koni, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) (As Per Hon'ble Court Order Dtd. 28-07-2026) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Technical Education Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Police Station And Post Rakhi, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Joint Director (Training) Regional Office Of Joint Director, Industrial Training, Institute, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Joint Director Divisional Office, Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Principal Adarsh Industrial Training Institute, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner/s : Ms. Sundaro Sahu, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Abhishek Pandey, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Shri T.L. Bareth, P.L. NIRMALA RAO 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 31/08/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to produce all the relevant records relating to case of the petitioner before this Hon'ble Court for its kind perusal. (ii) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/quash the impugned recovery letter dated 23.3.2021 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No.4/Principal, Adarsh ITI, Bilaspur (CG) (iii) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to also set aside/quash the impugned recovery letter dated 31.3.2021 (Annexure P/2) issued by respondent No.4/Principal, Adarsh ITI, Bilaspur (CG). (iv) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to refund the amount which has been deducted from the account of the petitioner pursuant to the impugned recovery letters. (v) That this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to direct respondents to give suitable compensation to the petitioner for the mental trauma and agony, harassment and hardships suffered by him as also cost of the litigation.” 2. The facts, in brief, are that an order of recovery to the tune of Rs.1,81,228/- was issued by respondent No.4 on 23.3.2021 on the ground that the pay scale of the petitioner had been wrongly fixed on the higher side with effect from 1.7.2013, which continued till 30.4.2020. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was working as a Training Officer in the subject of “Steno- Hindi” and retired from service after filing of this writ petition. She would submit that there was no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner 3 and that his pay scale had been fixed on the higher side by the department itself. She would submit that, though the order of recovery was issued prior to the date of retirement, it would be very difficult for the petitioner to refund the amount after his superannuation. She would further contend that the mistake was detected by the department after seven years and, thus, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, (2015) 4 SCC 334. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that the pay of the petitioner was wrongly fixed on the higher side with effect from 1.7.2013, which continued till 30.4.2020. The department detected the mistake in the fixation of the petitioner’s salary in the year 2021, and thereafter, order Annexure-P/1 was issued for recovery of the excess amount paid to the petitioner. The petitioner had also expressed his willingness to return the excess amount paid on account of the wrong fixation of his salary and had consented to the deduction of the excess amount from his pension, gratuity and leave encashment. Hence, he is not entitled to the benefit of the decisions relied upon by him. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 6. It appears that the petitioner, who was working on the post of Training Officer “Steno-Hindi”, was served with an order of recovery to the tune of Rs.1,81,228/- on the ground that his pay scale had been wrongly fixed on the higher side and that this practice continued from 1.7.2013 4 till 30.4.2020. There is no allegation of any misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner, and the order of recovery was issued after seven years from the date of grant of the higher pay scale. The petitioner has already retired from service. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) observed thus:- “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. 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. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, it is quite vivid that the department detected its mistake after seven years, 5 and there is no provision regarding an undertaking under the Revision of Pay Rules. Therefore, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra) would apply. 9. For the foregoing discussion and in light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the impugned orders dated 23.3.2021 and 31.3.2021 (Annexure-P/1 & P/2) are hereby quashed. 10. The respondents are directed to refund the recovered amount to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 5% per annum. 11. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), the instant petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi