1 / 7 2026:CGHC:17528 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 13020 of 2025 Uday Prasad Tiwari S/o Late Shri Giriprasad Tiwari, Aged About 60 Years Post- Dresser, Health Department, R/o Qr.No. 35, R.E.S. Colony, Ward No. 08, Anwarabhata, Dantewada, Tahsil Dantewada, District South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Health And Family Welfare Department, Ministry, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director, Health Services, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, North Block, Sector 19, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) 4 - Divisional Joint Director, Health Services, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) 5 - Chief Medical And Health Officer, Dantewada, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, District South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2026.04.21 11:03:49 +0530 2 / 7 6 - District Treasury Officer, Dantewada, District South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) 7 - Civil Surgeon Cum Chief Hospital Superintendent, District South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Alok Kumar Dewangan, Advocate For State : Mr. Aditya Tiwari, Panel Lawyer S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 16/04/2026 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, this case is heard finally. 2. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash / set aside the Order kramank/Sis/Stha./2025, Dantewada, dated 05/08/2025 & Order kramank/Sis/Stha./2025, Dantewada, dated 17/07/2025 passed by the Civil Surgeon cum Chief Hospital Superintendent, District South Bastar Dantewada, C.G. for recovery of the amount of Rs 9,01,719/- allegedly paid in excess to the petitioner, due to wrong pay fixation from 01/01/2000 till 01/07/2024 in the interest of justice. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records from the office of the respondents in respect of petitioner's claim for kind perusal of this Hon'ble High Court & kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities 3 / 7 to refund the already deducted amount from the salary of the petitioner within stipulated time frame, with interest @ 8% per annum, from the due date of payment till the date of actual payment to the petitioner. 10.3 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities for payment of expense incurred in filling litigation and compensation for undue suffering in the interest of justice. 10.4 That, any other writ, order, directions or relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners.” 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner who is working on the post of Dresser Grade-I and posted at District Hospital Dantewada was served with impugned notice of recovery of Rs.9,01,719/- on the ground of excess payment made due to wrong fixation of pay. He submits that recovery from the petitioner who is Class-III employee is not permissible in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab & ors vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & ors, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 . 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit though recovery has been sought on account of excess payment made to petitioner, however, proceeding of recovery has been initiated during his service period and therefore it is permissible in law. Even otherwise recovery is to be made pursuant to undertaking given by petitioner to the department in this regard. There is no 4 / 7 arbitrariness on the part of respondent in deducting the amount which is paid in excess to petitioner. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with writ petition. 6. Recovery which is made from petitioner is in respect of excess payment made due to wrong fixation of pay. It is not the case of respondent that excess payment is made to petitioner due to misrepresentation or suppression of fact or any fraud played by petitioner with respondent. 7. In 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, even recovery from the employee by the employer would not be permissible in law. In Para-18 it was observed thus:- “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. 5 / 7 (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.” 8. In case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others vs. Jagdev Singh, reported in (2016) 14 SCC 267, Hon’ble Supreme Court though had considered the issue with regard to the undertaking, however, Para-10 (i) of the 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 WA No.264/2020 (State of CG vs Labha Ram Dhruv) wherein it was 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 6 / 7 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” 9. In the case at hand, it is not the case of respondents that petitioner had received excess payment by practicing fraud or by making misrepresentation. Thus, petitioner cannot be compelled to return the amount which has been paid by the respondents on their own without any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of petitioner. 10. 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 against petitioner is not sustainable. 11.Consequently, writ petition is allowed. Order Annexure P-1 dated 05.08.2025 and order Annexure P-2 dated 17.07.2025 so far it relates to recovery to be made from petitioner of Rs.9,01,719/- are hereby quashed. Amount so recovered be returned to petitioner within a period 7 / 7 of four months from the date of receipt of copy of order, failing which recovered amount shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of order till its realization. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen