1 2026:CGHC:16954 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1692 of 2025 Ratan Bahadur S/o Late Shri Dhan Bahadur Aged About 64 Years R/o Narayani Homes Sambalpur Sakari P.S. And Tahsil Sakri District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Department Of Home/ Police Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Police Station And Post Rakhi Atal Nagar Naya Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Inspector General Of Police (Igp) Office Of Inspector General Of Police Chhattisgarh Armed Force (Caf) Police Headquarter (Phq) Sector - 19 Police Station And Post Rakhi Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Divisional Joint Director O/o Divisional Joint Director Treasury Account And Pension Bilaspur Division District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Commandant Officer Of Commandant Second Battalion Chhattisgarh Armed Force (Caf) Sakri District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rishabh Dev Sahu on behalf of Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aditya Tiwari, Panel Lawyer 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 13/04/2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for the following reliefs: 10.1 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. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the impugned certificate/ recovery order dated 03.08.2022 against the petitioner for an amount of Rs. 4,10,871/- issued by the respondent no. 4 Commandant, 2nd Battalion, Sakri, Bilaspur, C.G. (Annexure P/1). 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the impugned recovery order dated 13.09.2022 against the petitioner for an amount of Rs. 4,10,871/- issued by the respondent no. 3 Divisional Joint Director, Treasury-Account and Pension, Bilaspur, C.G. (Annexure P/2). 10.4 That, the Hon’ble High Court may kindly be 3 pleased to direct the respondent authorities to refund the whole deducted amount to the petitioner i.e. Rs. 4,10,871/- along with the interest of 18% per annum which has been deducted due to the above mentioned impugned recovery orders issued by Respondent no. 3 and 4. 10.5 That, this Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to direct 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 petitioner while working as Constable (Trade) under the office of respondent no. 4, after attaining the age of superannuation retired from service w.e.f. 31.07.2022 and after retirement, the respondent no. 4 issued recovery order against the petitioner for a total amount of Rs. 4,10,871/- in which Rs. 43,000/- deducted from the salary of petitioner and remaining amount of Rs. 3,67,871/- deducted from the gratuity of the petitioner which is evident from Annexure P/2. He submits that even if for some error on the part of respondents department, some excess payment is made towards salary to petitioner, who is Class-III employee, then also recovery after retirement is not permissible under the law. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme 4 Court in case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, in case of Thomas Daniel Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. (2022) SCC Online SC 536, and in case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others vs. Jagdev Singh, reported in (2016) 14 SCC 267, and submits that recovery of amount paid mistakenly to Grade-III employee is not permissible. He further contended that from such employee even if some consent is obtained subsequent to making of excess payment then also recovery is not permissible and placed reliance on the order passed y the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 264/2020 (State of CG Vs Labha Ram Dhruv) and WA No. 265/2020 (State of CG and others vs Roshan Lal Baghel). Therefore recovery of amount from the petitioner is bad in law. 3. Learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that while finalizing the retiral dues upon verification. It revealed that excess payment is made to petitioner. Accordingly, it is recalculated and pay is refixed and on the consent given by petitioner amount paid in excess is recovered. 4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 5. In the case of Rafiq Masih (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court considering the issue of recovery of amount paid in excess has summarized the situations where in certain cases, recovery from the employee by the employer would not be permissible in law. In para -18 it was observed thus:- 5 “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. Perusal of the observation made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) shows that recovery from employees 6 belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service group has been held to be impermissible. Relying upon the decision in the cases of Rafiq Masih (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Thomas Daniel (supra) has further held the recovery from the employees after long time to be unjustified. 7. In case of Jagdev Singh (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court though had considered the issue with regard to the undertaking, however, Para-10 (i) decision in case of Rafiq Masih (supra) has not been overruled or interfered. This aspect is also considered by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Labha Ram Dhruv (Supra) and observed thus: “9.In the case at hand, the Revision of Pay Rules, 2009 and 2017 do not make any enabling provision reserving option for the employer to seek refund of the amount paid in excess, by making the employee to furnish an undertaking. Even if we conclude, for the sake of arguments, that even in the absence of enabling provision under the Rules, undertaking given by the employee would operate, the fact remains that against the classes of employees against whom recovery would be impermissible in law, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (Supra), recovery from the employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service) would still be impermissible in law. Meaning thereby that even when undertaking is submitted by the employee, but he otherwise belongs to Class-III and Class-IV service, and the amount has been paid more than 5 years back, the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the 7 matter of Rafiq Masih (Supra) would still hold the field in favour of such employees, because the judgment in the matter of Rafiq Masih (Supra) has not been overruled, but only clarified, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its later judgment in the matter of Jagdev Singh, Supra” 8. From perusal of the above it is clear that the recovery from the employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV category (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service) is impermissible in law. Meaning thereby that even if undertaking is submitted by the employee, but he otherwise belongs to Class-III or Class-IV service, recovery of excess amount paid from him/her is impermissible. 9. In the case at hand, admittedly, petitioner is working on the post of Class III cadre in the Education Department. It is also not the case of respondents that petitioner had received excess payment by practicing fraud or by making misrepresentation. Thus, petitioner cannot be compelled to refund the amount which has been paid by the respondents on their own without any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of petitioner. 10. So far as undertaking/consent submitted by petitioner is concerned, the Division Bench of this High Court in Labha Ram Dhruv (supra), while considering the issue of undertaking has held that giving of such an undertaking is not a voluntary act and recovery on that basis, therefore, cannot be sustained. The Division Bench in Para-9 has held thus: “9.In the case at hand, the Revision of Pay Rules, 2009 and 2017 do not make any 8 enabling provision reserving option for the employer to seek refund of the amount paid in excess, by making the employee to furnish an undertaking. Even if we conclude, for the sake of arguments, that even in the absence of enabling provision under the Rules, undertaking given by the employee would operate, the fact remains that against the classes of employees against whom recovery would be impermissible in law, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (Supra), recovery from the employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service) would still be impermissible in law. Meaning thereby that even when undertaking is submitted by the employee, but he otherwise belongs to Class- III and Class-IV service, and the amount has been paid more than 5 years back, the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (Supra) would still hold the field in favour of such employees, because the judgment in the matter of Rafiq Masih (Supra) has not been overruled, but only clarified, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its later judgment in the matter of Jagdev Singh, Supra.” 11. In light of above decisions and in the given facts and circumstances of the case, in the considered opinion of this Court, the respondents cannot be permitted to effect recovery from the petitioner of the amount paid in excess and being so, recovery 9 against the petitioner is not sustainable. 12. Consequently, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order of recovery passed against petitioner is hereby quashed. If recovery is already made, respondents are directed to refund the amount so recovered from petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of order, failing which aforesaid amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of order till its realization. 13. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) JUDGE Madhurima