1 / 5 CGHC010083412026 2026:CGHC:42550 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2240 of 2026 Dharam Das Satnami S/o Late Shri Pahatiya Satnami Aged About 70 Years By Caste Satnami (Sontakke), R/o Ward No. 11, Phool Chowk, Satnami Para, P.S. Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd., Through Its Chairman, Registered Office At Energy Info Tech Centre, Daganiya Raipur Distt - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd Through Its Executive Director, (R/R) Or Supdt. Engineer, (O/M) C.S.P.D.C.L. Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. Through Its Senior Accounts Officer, C.S.P.D.C.L. Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Jameel Akhtar Lohani, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru) Order on Board 30/09/2026 1. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the recovery order dated 16/01/2026 (Annexure P/1) passed by Respondent No.3, whereby an amount of Rs.9,33,660/- has been directed to be recovered ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2026.10.01 18:17:26 +0530 2 / 5 from the petitioner by making deduction from his pensionary benefits. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner retired from the post of Assistant Lineman, being a Class-IV employee, on 31/03/2018 after attaining the age of superannuation. He would submit that pursuant to the Pension Payment Order dated 11/07/2018, the petitioner was being paid pension of Rs.33,350/- per month. He would further submit that subsequently, without any prior intimation, deduction of Rs.11,115/- per month was started from the pension of the petitioner with effect from September, 2025. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 16/01/2026 was passed stating that due to non-updation of the SAP data, the petitioner was paid pension of Rs.33,350/- instead of the reduced pension of Rs.22,235/- and consequently an excess amount of Rs.9,33,660/- was allegedly paid to him for the period from 01/09/2018 to 31/08/2025, i.e. for 84 months. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner had not committed any misrepresentation or fraud and the alleged excess payment was solely on account of the mistake of the respondents. He would further submit that the petitioner had already retired about eight years prior to passing of the impugned order and, being a retired Class-IV employee, recovery of the amount from his pension is impermissible in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others, (2015) 4 SCC 334. He would lastly submit that no proper opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passing the impugned order and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 3 / 5 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in WPS No.4652/2026, decided on 30/07/2026, wherein the recovery of excess pension arising on account of non-updation of SAP data was upheld. He would submit that as per the Pension Payment Order dated 11/07/2018, the petitioner was entitled to reduced pension of Rs.22,235/- after payment of commutation amount of Rs.10,64,640/-. However, due to non-reduction of pension in the SAP data, the petitioner continued to receive Rs.33,350/- per month, resulting in excess payment of Rs.11,115/- per month for 84 months. He would further submit that the total excess amount of Rs.9,33,660/- is public money and the same is liable to be recovered from the petitioner. He would submit that the petitioner cannot retain the amount paid in excess of his sanctioned entitlement merely because the excess payment occurred due to an inadvertent mistake of the Department. He would lastly submit that in view of the judgment passed in WPS No.4652/2026, the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the excess payment was occasioned on account of non-updation of the SAP data. Though, as per the Pension Payment Order dated 11/07/2018, the petitioner was to receive reduced pension of Rs.22,235/- after payment of the commutation amount, he continued to receive pension of Rs.33,350/- per month. Consequently, an excess amount of Rs.11,115/- per month was 4 / 5 paid to the petitioner for the period from 01/09/2018 to 31/08/2025, resulting in excess payment of Rs.9,33,660/-. 6. The petitioner has not disputed the receipt of the aforesaid amount. The challenge is primarily based on the plea that the excess payment was not on account of any misrepresentation or fault on his part and that he was a retired Class-IV employee. 7. It is noteworthy to mention here that the issue relating to excess payment arising on account of non-updation of SAP data has already been considered by this Court in WPS No.4652/2026, decided on 30/07/2026, wherein on similar facts the challenge to the recovery order was not accepted. In the said case also, the excess payment had occurred due to non-updation of the SAP data after commutation of pension. The Court considered the claim of the petitioner with reference to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (supra) and Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, (2012) 8 SCC 417. 8. So far as the judgments relied upon by the petitioner, including the judgment in Rafiq Masih (supra), are concerned, the applicability of the exception laid down therein depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The respondents have relied upon the subsequent judgment of this Court in WPS No.4652/2026, which deals with the same nature of excess pension payment arising due to non-updation of SAP data. 9. It is pertinent to mention here that when inadvertently the petitioner was paid the full amount of pension without making the reduction stipulated 5 / 5 in the Pension Payment Order, the excess amount so paid was beyond his sanctioned entitlement. The petitioner, therefore, cannot claim entitlement to retain the amount paid in excess merely on account of an error in the Departmental records. The excess payment of public money cannot ordinarily be retained merely because the overpayment resulted from a bona fide mistake of the employer. Any amount paid or received beyond the sanctioned entitlement carries with it a corresponding obligation to refund the same, subject to the exceptions recognised in law. 10. Consequently, in view of the considered opinion of this Court and having regard to the judgment passed in WPS No.4652/2026, this Court does not find any jurisdictional error, perversity or violation of statutory provisions in the impugned recovery order dated 16/01/2026 warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is liable to be and hereby dismissed. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE ashu