1 2026:CGHC:7003 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5217 of 2017 1 - Jirmaniya Bai Wd/o Late Pitambar Ram, Aged About 63 Years R/o Village Narmadapur, Post Office Narmadapur, Mainpat, Surguja, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 2 - District Education Officer, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Deputy Treasury Officer, Sitapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Block Education Officer, Mainpat, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 5 - Collector, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 6 - Assistant Director, Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Office Of Divisional Joint Director, Treasury Accounts And Pension, Division Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shashwat Mishra, Advocate For State / Respondent(s) : Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, Dy. GA Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 09/02/2026 PAWAN KUMAR Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR Date: 2026.02.10 11:22:50 +0530 2 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming following reliefs : i] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders directing the respondent authorities to disburse the entire retiral benefits along with the interest within a stipulated period of one month and they may further be directed to finalize the pension case of the petitioner within a period of one month and the arrears of pension from August, 2016 to September, 2017 may kindly be directed to be disbursed with interest within a further period of one month. Ii] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner retired as an Assistant Teacher from Primary School, Bardand Para, Mainpat, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh, on 31.07.2016 upon attaining the age of superannuation. However, her admissible retiral dues were not paid, compelling her to file the present writ petition seeking the aforesaid relief. He further submits that subsequently the petitioner came to know that certain recoveries had been effected from her retiral dues on the ground of alleged excess payment made to her due to wrong fixation of pay scale during her service tenure. It is contended that no recovery order or show- cause notice was ever served upon the petitioner in respect of the said recovery. He submits that the petitioner, being a Class-III employee, cannot be subjected to such recovery in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble 3 Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334. He further submits that the said principle has been subsequently followed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Thomas Daniel vs. State of Kerala and others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine 536. Thus, it is prayed that the amount of Rs. 15,68,909/- recovered from the retiral dues of the petitioner be directed to be refunded/paid to the petitioner by the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner was paid excess salary on account of wrong fixation of pay scale from 01.01.1986 till the date of her retirement. It is contended that when the said mistake came to the notice of the authorities at the time of assessment of the petitioner’s retiral dues, the excess amount so paid was recovered, which is duly reflected in the Pension Payment Order issued to the petitioner, Annexure R-1. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was subjected to recovery without notice. He further submits that the petitioner was paid General Provident Fund (GPF) amounting to Rs. 12,01,871/- and the recovery so effected was adjusted against the remaining retiral dues, including group insurance scheme, leave encashment, gratuity and family welfare fund, etc. It is submitted that the petitioner was unduly enriched during her service tenure by receiving amounts to which she was not entitled. Hence, the writ petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 5. The petitioner was an Assistant Teacher and retired after attaining the age of superannuation. It is not disputed by either of the parties that the petitioner is a Class-III employee. From the record, it appears that the recovery was made from the year 28.08.1981 to 31.07.2015. The parameters recovery from Class-III and Class-IV employees have been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (supra). In paragraph 4 18 of the said judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “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 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.” 6. The Rafiq Masih (supra) case has further been followed the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Thomas Daniel Vs. State of Kerala and others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine 536 has quashed the recovery of excess amount paid to the petitioner and observed in paragraph 9 as under:- “9. This Court in a catena of decisions has consistently held that if the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud of the employee or if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order which is subsequently found to be erroneous, such excess payment of emoluments or allowances are not recoverable. This relief against the recovery is granted not because of any 5 right of the employees but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to provide relief to the employees from the hardship that will be caused if the recovery is ordered. This Court has further held that if in a given case, it is proved that an employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, the matter being in the realm of judicial discretion, the courts may on the facts and circumstances of any particular case order for recovery of amount paid in excess.” 7. It is not the case of the respondents that the excess payment was made to the petitioner on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on her part. On a pointed query raised by this Court, learned counsel for the respondents submits that no express order of recovery was passed against the petitioner and that the said amount was recovered from the retiral dues of the petitioner. 8. Taking into consideration the submissions made hereinabove and also relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rafiq Masih (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the recovery made from the petitioner does not sustain judicial scrutiny. Accordingly, it is held that the recovery of Rs. 15,68,909/- effected from the retiral dues of the petitioner is impermissible in law. 9. Consequently, the respondents are directed to pay the above retiral dues to the petitioner within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 10. Petition thus allowed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Pawan