1 CGHC010038472020 2026:CGHC:39466 NAFR HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 716 of 2020 Smt. Pushpalata Lonhare W/o Shri Praveen Kumar Lonhare Aged About 47 Years Working As Staff Nurse At Community Health Centre Arjunda, (Gunderdehi) District Balod, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Health, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Divisional Joint Director Treasury And Pension Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief Medical officer Balod, District Balod Chhattisgarh. 4 - Block Medical officer Gunderdehi, District Balod Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. G. P. Mathur, Advocate along with Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate For Respondent(s) /State : Mr. Kawaljeet Singh Saini, Deputy Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 09/09/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief:- 2 “10.(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash impugned order dated 31.12.2019 (Annexure P-1), in the interest of justice. (ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to continue three advance increment and respondent may be restrained making any recovery on this account, and recovered amount if any may be refunded, in the interest of justice. (iii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case including cost of the petition, may also be granted.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been served with an order of recovery issued by respondent No. 4 dated 31.12.2019 on the ground that the petitioner was wrongly extended the benefit of three advance increments during her tenure. He would further submit that the said benefit was extended by the department itself and there was no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner. He would also submit that the petitioner is a Class-III employee and the respondent authorities have directed the petitioner to refund the excess amount paid to her. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (2015) 4 SCC 334. 3. On the other hand, learned Deputy Government Advocate would submit that the benefit of three advance increments was extended to the petitioner as she had completed the Diploma in General Nursing and Midwifery course. Subsequently, the said benefit was withdrawn by the State Government, therefore, the order of recovery was issued by respondent No. 4 on 31.12.2019; thus, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard. 3 5. Admittedly, the petitioner is a Class-III employee. She was extended the benefit of three advance increments as she had completed the Diploma in General Nursing and Midwifery in the year 1996. She was extended the benefit of three advance increments pursuant to the circulars issued by the State Government, but subsequently those circulars were withdrawn as the Diploma in General Nursing and Midwifery course was made an essential qualification for the post of Staff Nurse. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a Class-III employee and the payment in question was made for long period of time. The State has not alleged any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) has summarized the permissible exceptions to recovery in paragraph 18, and has clearly held that recovery in the following cases would be impermissible in law:- “18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, 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 4 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.” 8. In the present case, the petitioner belongs to Class-III service, the alleged excess payment spans over more than 13 years, and there is no allegation of misrepresentation or fraud, therefore, the case of the petitioner squarely falls within clauses (i) and (iii) of the guidelines laid down in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra). 9. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts and law, the impugned order dated 31.12.2019 (Annexure P/1) is hereby set- aside. The petition is allowed. No order as to costs. 10.If any excess amount has been recovered from the petitioner, the same shall be refunded to the petitioner forthwith. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim