1 CGHC010331432026 2026:CGHC:38898 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6459 of 2026 Ramkumar Tode Aged About 63 Years (Retired Inspector), S/o Late Shri Jaylal Tode, R/o J-21, Rajdhani Vihar, Saddu, P.S.- Vidhansabha, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home (Police), Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, (C.G.) 2 – Director, General Of Police Chhattisgarh Police Headquarters, Near Mantralaya, Sector-19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Senior Superintendent Of Police Mungeli, District- Mungeli (C.G.) 4 - Joint Director, Treasury Account And Pension, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, (C.G.) 5 - District Treasury Officer, Mungeli, District- Mungeli, (C.G.) …. Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2026.09.03 10:41:14 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Satish Surya, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, Addl. Adv. General (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 02/09/2026 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of the impugned order dated 10.06.2026 (Annexure P/6) passed by respondent No.3/ Senior Superintendent of Police, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) and further seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to refund the recovered/ deducted amount. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who was working on the post of Inspector (Class-III) in the Office of respondent No.3, is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 10.06.2026 (Annexure P/6), whereby respondent No.3 has directed recovery of a sum of Rs.7,19,193/- from the petitioners’ leave encashment amount on account of alleged excess payment, without issuance of any show cause notice or affording an opportunity of hearing. He submits that the alleged excess payment was made pursuant to pay fixation by the department during the period from 2007 to 2026 and was not attributable to any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the recovery is impermissible in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334, as 3 the excess payment pertains to a period extending over several years. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned recovery order be quashed and the recovered amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioner. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that at the time of pay fixation, it was found that the petitioner's pay had been erroneously fixed by clerical mistake, resulting in excess payment of salary during the course of service. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings as well as the material available on record. 5. The principal issue that arises for consideration in the present case is whether the respondents were justified in revising the pay fixation of the petitioner and directing recovery of an amount of Rs.7,19,193/- during his service period on the ground of erroneous pay fixation, particularly when the petitioner was holding a Class-III post, and there is no allegation of any misrepresentation or fraud on her part. A further issue which requires consideration is whether the impugned order could have been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and whether the same are sustainable in light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (Supra). 6. In Rafiq Masih (Supra), 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 4 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). 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." 5 7. From a perusal of the record, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was holding a Class-III post. It is also not in dispute that there is no material available on record to indicate that the petitioner had obtained the alleged excess payment by practicing fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of any material fact. The excess payment, if any, appears to have arisen on account of an act attributable to the employer. 8. 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 petitioner is holding a Class-III post and the alleged excess payment relates to a period much beyond preceding the issuance of the recovery order. Consequently, recovery of the alleged excess amount from the petitioner cannot be sustained in law. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 10.06.2026 (Annexure P/6) is hereby set aside. Liberty is reserved to the respondents to undertake a fresh exercise with regard to pay fixation of the petitioner in accordance with law, after affording her an adequate opportunity of hearing. It is, however, made clear that any recovery of the alleged excess payment already made to the petitioner shall be governed by the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (supra). 10. The respondents are directed to release and refund to the petitioner the amount, if any, recovered or withheld pursuant to 6 the impugned recovery order. The respondents shall further ensure release of the amount already recovered, if any, payable to the petitioner. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 11. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE $. Bhilwar