1 CGHC010190792026 2026:CGHC:41976 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4265 of 2026 Khilawan Prasad Ganguli S/o Late Shri Laljiram Bhat Aged About 66 Years R/o Shubhash Nagar, Kukripara, Near Bijli Office, Maha-Maya Ward, Raipur, P.S. Puranibasti, Tehsil And District Raipur C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of Home/police, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Police Station And Post- Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 2 - Divisional Joint Director, O/o Divisional Joint Director, Treasury- Accounts And Pension, Raipur Division, Distt.- Raipur C.G. 3 - Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIGP) Senior Superintendent of Police (Senior SP), O/o DIGP/ Senior S P, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 4 - Police Commissioner, Office of Police Commissioner, Raipur, Distt. Raipur C.G. 5 - Incharge Pay Branch, Office of Police Commissioner, Raipur, District Raipur C.G. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate For State : Mr. Saumitra Kesharwani, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru) Order on Board 25/09/2026 ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2026.09.26 16:37:21 +0530 2 1. The present petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:- (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 order of Amendment in Pay Fixation dated 10.05.2022 of petitioner issued by Respondent No. 3, Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIGP) / Senior Superintendent of Police (Senior SP), Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) (Annexure P/1), copy of said order not supplied to petitioner obtained under RTI Act. (iii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside/quash the impugned recovery order dated 07.02.2026 Obtained by Petitioner from The office of Respondent no 5, Incharge pay Branch Office of police commissioner, Raipur (Annexure P/3). (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 i.e. Rs. 1,85,452/- along with the interest of 18% per annum which has been deducted due to the above mentioned impugned recovery order dated 07.02.2026 issued by Respondent No. 5. (v) That this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to direct 3 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as a Constable, which is a Class-III post, and superannuated from service on 30.06.2022. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had already retired on 30.06.2022, whereas the impugned recovery order is dated 07.02.2026. The alleged excess payment relates to the period commencing from 01.01.1996 and ending on 01.07.2021. Thus, the recovery pertains to a period much beyond five years preceding the order of recovery. It is, therefore, submitted that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334, particularly as the petitioner was a Class-III employee and had already retired from service. In Rafiq Masih, recovery from retired employees and from employees belonging to Class-III/Class-IV service, as also recovery relating to excess payment for a period exceeding five years preceding the order of recovery, have been held to be impermissible in the circumstances contemplated therein and, the alleged excess payment was not attributable to any fraud, misrepresentation or concealment on the part of the petitioner. 3. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the petition and submits that, upon examination of the service book and service records of the petitioner, it was found that excess payment had been made to him due to erroneous pay fixation and, consequently, an amount of Rs.1,85,452/- 4 was recoverable from him. It is submitted that the petitioner was directed to deposit the said amount, failing which the same was liable to be recovered from his retiral dues, and the amount was accordingly deposited/recovered vide challan dated 19.07.2022. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. The undisputed position emerging from the pleadings is that the petitioner was holding the post of Constable, a Class-III post, and stood superannuated from service on 30.06.2022. The alleged excess payment relates to the period from 01.01.1996 to 01.07.2021, whereas the impugned recovery order is dated 07.02.2026. Thus, the recovery sought to be effected is not only from a retired employee but also pertains to alleged excess payment made over a period substantially exceeding five years preceding the impugned recovery order. 6. In Rafiq Masih (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering the earlier authorities, carved out certain situations in which recovery of excess payment would be impermissible in law, including: “(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. 5 (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" 7. In the present case, the petitioner squarely falls within the aforesaid categories. He was a Class-III employee and had already retired from service. Further, the alleged excess payment pertains to a period commencing from 01.01.1996, whereas the impugned recovery order was issued on 07.02.2026. The respondents have not alleged any fraud, misrepresentation or concealment on the part of the petitioner. Their case is essentially that the excess payment occurred on account of erroneous 6 pay fixation by the department. 8. In the present case, although the respondents have asserted in their reply that the petitioner had furnished an undertaking at the time of opting for the revised pay scale, no such undertaking has been placed before this Court along with the reply so as to establish its terms and applicability to the recovery presently under challenge. Mere assertion regarding existence of an undertaking, in the absence of the undertaking itself on record, cannot by itself take the case outside the principles governing recovery from a retired Class-III employee. 9. It is also relevant that the petitioner has specifically pleaded that no effective opportunity of hearing was afforded to him before the impugned amendment in pay fixation and consequential recovery was made. The respondents, while justifying the recovery on the ground of erroneous pay fixation, have not placed before this Court any material demonstrating that the petitioner was afforded an effective opportunity to object to the proposed re-fixation and recovery before the impugned action was taken. 10. Accordingly, the impugned order of Amendment in Pay Fixation dated 10.05.2022 (Annexure P/1) and the consequential recovery order dated 07.02.2026 (Annexure P/3), insofar as they relate to recovery of the alleged excess payment of Rs.1,85,452/-, are hereby set aside. Liberty is, however, reserved to the respondents to undertake a fresh exercise with regard to the pay fixation of the petitioner, if permissible in law, after affording him an adequate opportunity of hearing and thereafter passing 7 a reasoned and speaking order. It is, however, made clear that any recovery of the alleged excess payment shall be governed by the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (supra) and other applicable law. 11. Consequently, the respondents are directed to refund/release the amount of Rs.1,85,452/- to the petitioner, if the said amount has been recovered or adjusted from his retiral dues pursuant to the aforesaid impugned orders. The respondents shall further ensure release of all remaining admissible retiral dues, if any, payable to the petitioner. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of 50 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE ashu`