1 2026:CGHC:16872 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3097 of 2022 * - Ram Kumar Soni S/o Late Pyarelal Soni Aged About 58 Years Occupation- Assistant Internal Account Examiner And Taxation Officer Under The Office Of Janpad Panchayat Dondi Lohara, District- Balod (C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Panchayat And Social Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Mantralaya, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director Directorate Of Panchayat And Social Welfare Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Mantralaya, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Collector Balod District Balod (C.G.) 4 - The Deputy Director Panchayat And Social Welfare Department Balod District Balod (C.G.) 5 - The Chief Executive Officer Jila Panchayat Balod District- Balod (C.G.) 6 - The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Dondi Lohara, District Balod (C.G.) 7 - The Joint Director Treasury, Account And Pension Durg, District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Prakash Tiwari, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 4/ State For Respondent No. 6 : : Mr. Abhyuday Tripathi, Panel Lawyer Mr. Ajit Singh, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 13/04/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.04.15 19:02:22 +0530 2 “10.1 That, this Hon’ble court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside the recovery proceeding initiated by the respondent no. 4 against the petitioner. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no. 6 to remit back the recovered amount to the tune of Rs.2,20,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. 10.4 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deem fit. 10.5 Cost of the petition may also be given.” 2. Mr. Prakash Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that at the relevant time, the petitioner was posted on post of Assistant Internal Account Examiner under respondent No. 6. He would submit that there was internal communication between the Deputy Director Panchayat, District Balod and the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Dondi Lohara, wherein recommendation was made for recovery of excess payment made to the petitioner. Mr. Tiwari would submit that pursuant to communication dated 14.03.2022, respondent No. 6 started recovery of Rs.5,000/- per month from salary of the petitioner. He would contend that when an information was sought under Right to Information and it was informed by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Dondi Lohara, District Balod that there is an order of recovery to the tune of Rs.4,33,336/- and pursuant to said order Rs.5,000/- per month is being deducted from salary of the petitioner. He would contend that order of recovery was never served upon the petitioner, but Rs.2,20,000/- has already deducted and outstanding amount is Rs.2,13,336/-. He would submit that the order of recovery has been issued as the pay scale of the petitioner was 3 wrongly fixed at higher side by the department. He would submit that there was no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner and the petitioner is a Class-III employee and he has got retired from services in the month of September, 2025. Thus, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered with the judgment passed by 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 counsel appearing for the respective respondents would oppose. 4. Mr. Ajit Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 6 would submit that the pay scale of the petitioner was wrongly fixed at higher side and when this fact was detected, decision was taken to recover the amount of excess payment to the tune of Rs.4,33,336/-. He would submit that an undertaking was given by the petitioner at the time of revision of pay and same would be binding upon the petitioner. He would contend that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. Admittedly, pay scale of the petitioner was revised by respondent No. 6 and there was no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner and at the same time an undertaking was given and same is part of return filed by respondent No. 6, but such undertaking was not obtained from the petitioner pursuant to existing rules, therefore, same cannot be used against the petitioner. 7. The petitioner is Class-III employee; the order of recovery was never served upon the petitioner and the petitioner has already got retired 4 from the services, therefore, it would very iniquitous on the part of the petitioner to refund the said amount. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Rafiq Masih (supra), while dealing with the issue of recovery of excess payment from employees, has held in paragraph 18 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.” 9. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, decision of recovery, if any, taken by respondent No. 6 is hereby quashed. The recovered amount of 5 Rs.,2,20,000/- shall be refunded to the petitioner with interest @ 7% per annum from date of recovery till its realization. The outstanding amount shall not be recovered from the petitioner. 10. In the result, the petition is allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti