1 CGHC010069162025 2026:CGHC:39487 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1335 of 2025 Uday Ram Sahu S/o Shri Salik Ram Sahu Aged About 62 Years R/o Saswat Nagar Boriakhurd Near Laxminarayan Mandir Raipur P.S. Tikrapara Tahsil And District - Raipur (C.G.) Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Department Of Home And Police Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Police Station And Post Rakhi Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Inspector General Of Police (Igp) Office Of Inspector General Of Police Shankar Nagar Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Divisional Joint Director Office Of Divisioanl Joint Director Treasury Account And Pension Raipur Division District - Raipur (C.G.) 4 - Deputy Inspector General Of Police (Digp) Senior Superintendent Of Police Office Of (Digp) And Senior S.P. Balodabazar District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rishabhdev Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Dy. GA RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.09.10 17:02:48 +0530 2 (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 09.09.2026 1. The petitioner in the instant petition has prayed for the following reliefs:- “10.1 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 High Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quashed the impugned recovery order against the petitioner dated 22.03.2024 issued by Respondent No. 4 Deputy Inspector Of General Of Police (DIGP)/Senior Superintendent of Police, Balodabazar, Dist-Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G) (Annexure P/1). (iii) That, this Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to Partly set-aside/quashed the impugned recovery order against the petitioner dated 24.09.2024 issued by Respondent No. 3 Divisional Joint Director, Treasury- Account and Pension Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G) (Annexure P/2). (iv) That, the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent Authorities to refund the whole deducted amount to the petitioner alongwith the interest of 15% per annum which has been deducted due to the above mentioned impugned recovery order dated 22.03.2024 & 24/09/2024 issued by Respondent No. 4 & 3. (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.” 3 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working on the post of Sub-Inspector under the respondents and retired from service on 30.06.2024. It is submitted that prior to his retirement, the service book of the petitioner was sent for verification and thereafter the respondents found that excess payment had allegedly been made to the petitioner on account of erroneous fixation of pay. Consequently, the impugned recovery order has been issued against the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner had neither practised any fraud nor made any misrepresentation or suppression of material facts for obtaining the alleged benefit. The payment in question was made by the respondents pursuant to the pay fixation carried out by the competent authority during the course of his service and, therefore, any excess payment, if at all, was attributable to the respondents and not to any fault on the part of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner, being a retired Class- III employee, is covered by the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334. It is contended that the mere fact that the service book was sent for verification before retirement or that the recovery order was passed shortly after retirement would not take the case outside the protection available to the petitioner. In the absence of any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner, recovery of the alleged excess amount from a retired employee is impermissible in law. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned recovery order deserves to be set aside. 4 4. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned recovery order and submits that during scrutiny of the service records it was noticed that the petitioner had been erroneously granted wrong fixation, resulting in excess payment of salary. Consequently, the respondents determined that an amount of Rs. 1,72.214/- had become recoverable from the petitioner. It is submitted that the respondents have merely sought recovery of the excess amount paid from the Government exchequer and, therefore, no illegality has been committed in issuing the impugned order. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings as well as the material available on record. 6. The principal issue that arises for consideration in the present petition is whether the respondents were justified in directing recovery of Rs.1,72,214/- from the petitioner, a Sub-Inspector, on the ground that excess payment had allegedly been made to him during his service due to erroneous fixation of pay, particularly when such recovery was ordered by respondent No.4 on 22.03.2024, when the petitioner was due to retire on 30.06.2024. A further issue which falls for consideration is whether the respondents could have directed such recovery without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and whether the subsequent pension releasing order dated 24.09.2024, issued by respondent No.3, reiterating recovery of the said amount from the petitioner, is sustainable in law, particularly in view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (Supra). 7. In Rafiq Masih (Supra), the Supreme Court held that while it is not 5 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). 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." 8. From the material placed on record, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was working on the post of Sub-Inspector under respondent No.4 and retired from service on 30.06.2024. Prior to his retirement, the service 6 book of the petitioner was sent for verification to the office of the Divisional Joint Director, Raipur. Upon verification, it was found that excess payment had allegedly been made to the petitioner on account of erroneous fixation of pay. Consequently, respondent No.4 issued the impugned order dated 22.03.2024 directing recovery of Rs.1,72,214/- from the petitioner. Thereafter, upon his retirement, respondent No.3 issued the pension releasing order dated 24.09.2024, wherein also recovery of the aforesaid amount was directed from the petitioner. 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). The petitioner was a Class-III employee and, on the date of the order of recovery, was due to retire within one year. Further, there is no allegation that the petitioner had obtained the alleged benefit by practising fraud, making any misrepresentation or suppressing any material fact. In such circumstances, recovery of the alleged excess amount from the petitioner cannot be sustained in law. 10. Apart from the aforesaid, the record does not disclose that any show- cause notice was issued or any effective opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before directing recovery of the aforesaid amount. The respondents have thus fastened a substantial monetary liability upon the petitioner without complying with the basic requirements of the principles of natural justice. On this ground also, the impugned action cannot be sustained. 11. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the 7 recovery of Rs.1,72,214/- from the petitioner, who was a Class-III employee and was due to retire within one year of the order of recovery, is impermissible in law. Accordingly, the impugned recovery order dated 22.03.2024 issued by respondent No.4 and the consequential direction contained in the pension releasing order dated 24.09.2024 issued by respondent No.3, to the extent it directs recovery of the aforesaid amount from the petitioner, are hereby set aside. 12. Consequently, if any amount has already been recovered from the petitioner pursuant to the aforesaid orders, the same shall be refunded to the petitioner within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is, however, made clear that the respondents shall be at liberty to undertake appropriate correction of the pay fixation of the petitioner, if found erroneous, in accordance with law. Such correction, however, shall not entail recovery from the petitioner of the excess amount already paid, having regard to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (Supra). 13. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE 𝓡𝓪𝓱𝓾𝓵