1 2026:CGHC:8617 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 86 of 2026 1 - Laxmi Prasad Chouhan S/o Chhedu Lal Chouhan Aged About 63 Years Retired Head Master (Primary School) At Govt. Primary School, Mudpar (Bade), Block Sarangarh, Distt. Sarangarh Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Accountant General Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Divisional Joint Director Fund, Account And Pension, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - District Education Officer Sarangarh Bilaigarh, Distt. Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Block Education Officer Sarangarh, Distt. Sarangarh Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Govind Prasad Dewangan, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Panel Lawyer SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 17/02 /2026 2 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition against the recovery of excess amount paid to petitioner during his service period vide impugned order dated 31.05.2024 (Annexure P/1) seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to .call for the entire records in relates to the case of the petitioner from the possession of respondents for its kind perusal 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned recovery order dated 31.05.2024 (Annexure P/1) issued by the Respondent No. 4 i.e. Divisional Joint Director, Fund, Account and Pension, Bilaspur Division, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) ordering to recovery of excess payment from the petitioner to the sum of Rs. 3,68,198/- and further be pleased to direct the respondents to return back the entire amount which has already been recovered from the Gratuity of the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned recovery order dated 31.05.2024 with interest @ 18% per annum within the period of 15 days, in the interest of justice. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief/relief’s in favour of the petitioners, which this Hon’ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submit that petitioner stood retired from service on 30.06.2023 while working on the post of Head Master in Government Primary School, Department of School Education. He contended that after one year of his retirement, Respondent No. 4 issued impugned order of recovery dated 31.05.2024 (Annexure P/1) for an amount of Rs. 3,68,198/-. Petitioner was compelled to give consent for deduction of the aforesaid amount from his Gratuity along with an affidavit for deducting the amount form the petitioner. He was threatened that if the consent is not given, his retiral dues will be withheld and accordingly, petitioner submitted consent. He also contended that from perusal of the reply submitted by the Respondents/State, it would be apparent that the petitioner was paid the amount accrued to him towards Group Insurance Scheme (GIS), Leave Encashment and General Provident Fund (GPF) 3 and after deducting the amount of Rs. 3,68,198/-, petitioner was paid amount of Gratuity. 3. He submits that recovery which is said to be made from petitioner is against the excess payment made to him towards salary due to wrong fixation of pay as pleaded in reply. Excess payment is not on account of any suppression of facts, frauds or misrepresentation on the part of petitioner with the respondent authorities. Petitioner stood retired from the post of Head Master which is a Class – III post under the Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Educational and Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and Promotion, Rules, 2019 and therefore, recovery of excess amount made to the petitioner after his retirement is not permissible. In support of his contention he places reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 and and also the orders passed by Division Bench of this High Court in Writ Appeal No.264/2020 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Labha Ram Dhruv) and Writ Appeal No.265/2020 (State of Chhattisgarh and Others v. Roshan Lal Baghel) as also, the decision dated 29.01.2025 passed by this Court in WP (S) No. 9793/2025 (Divya Kumar Sahu & Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors). 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents/State opposes the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that it is not in dispute that the petitioner stood retired from service holding the post of Head Master, Government Primary School which is a Class – III post. However, deduction is made pursuant to the consent and affidavit given by the petitioner to the department in this regard. He submits that the consent letter along with affidavit is filed as ANNEXURE R/1 and ANNEXURE R/2. 4 5. He submits that recovery is against the excess payment made to the petitioner due to wrong fixation of pay as the petitioner remained unauthorized absent from 09.05.1989 to 10.05.1989 and petitioner was given punishment of withholding of 01 increment with cumulative effect by order dated 16.01.1990, however, petitioner was getting the regular increment. Petitioner was paid retiral benefits after his retirement of Group Insurance Scheme (GIS), Leave Encashment and General Provident Fund (GPF) and after deducting the amount of Rs. 3,68,198/-, gratuity is also paid to him. There is no arbitrariness or illegality on the part of the respondents in deducting the amount which was paid to the petitioner in excess. In support of his contention he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Chandi Prasad Uniyal & Ors. Vs. State of Uttrakhand & Ors.’ reported in (2012) 8 SCC 417 the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in case of ‘Badri Prasad Sharma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh’ reported in (2006) 3 MPLJ 583. It is also contended that the petitioner gave consent for deduction of the said amount. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused documents filed along with writ petition. 7. From the arguments which is advanced by learned counsel for respective parties, it is not in dispute that petitioner stood retired from the post of Head Master, Government Primary School which is a Class – III post. 8. Recovery which is made from petitioner is towards excess payment made to him 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 committed by the petitioner with respondent department. From the pleadings made in reply, it is not appearing that the petitioner was served with any notice during his service period mentioning that the petitioner is required to refund the amount of excess payment, wrongly paid to him towards the salary, but the 5 deduction is made vide letter dated 31.05.2024 (Annexure P/1) that is, after about 01 year from his retirement. 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rafiq Masih (Supra) has clearly observed that recovery from the employees, when the excess payment for a period in case of 05 years before the order of recovery is issued and recovery from the retired employee or employees who are due to retire within 01 year of the order of recovery is impermissible. The relevant paragraph of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court is extracted below for reference:- “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 hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service). (ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from the 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.” 10. In the recent decision in case of Thomas Daniel Thomas Daniel Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. (2022 SCC OnLine SC 536), Hon’ble Supreme Court considering the decision in case of Rafiq Masih (supra) has allowed the petition filed by the employee therein and observed thus: “(9) This Court in a catena of decisions has consistently held that if the excess amount was not paid on account of 6 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 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. (11). In Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) v. Government of India and others, (2006) 11 SCC 709 this Court considered an identical question as under: ‘27. x x x x x 28. x x x x x 29. On the same principle, pensioners can also seek a direction that wrong payments should not be recovered, as pensioners are in a more disadvantageous position when compared to in-service employees. Any attempt to recover excess wrong payment would cause undue hardship to them. The petitioners are not guilty of any misrepresentation or fraud in regard to the excess payment. NPA was added to minimum pay, for purposes of stepping up, due to a wrong understanding by the implementing departments. We are therefore of the view that the respondents shall not recover any excess payments made towards pension in pursuance of the circular dated 7-6-1999 till the issue of the clarificatory circular dated 11-9-2001. Insofar as any excess payment made after the circular dated 11-9-2001, obviously the Union of India will be entitled to recover the excess as the validity of the said circular has been upheld and as pensioners have been put on notice in regard to the wrong calculations earlier made.’ (12). In Syed Abdul Qadir and Others v. State of Bihar and Others, (2009) 3 SCC 475 excess payment was sought to be recovered which was made to the appellants-teachers on account of mistake and wrong interpretation of prevailing Bihar Nationalised Secondary School (Service Conditions) Rules, 1983. The appellants therein contended that even if it were to be held that the appellants were not entitled to the benefit of additional 7 increment on promotion, the excess amount should not be recovered from them, it having been paid without any misrepresentation or fraud on their part. The Court held that the appellants cannot be held responsible in such a situation and recovery of the excess payment should not be ordered, especially when the employee has subsequently retired. The court observed that in general parlance, recovery is prohibited by courts where there exists no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee and when the excess payment has been made by applying a wrong interpretation/ understanding of a Rule or Order. It was held thus: “59. Undoubtedly, the excess amount that has been paid to the appellant teachers was not because of any misrepresentation or fraud on their part and the appellants also had no knowledge that the amount that was being paid to them was more than what they were entitled to. It would not be out of place to mention here that the Finance Department had, in its counter-affidavit, admitted that it was a bona fide mistake on their part. The excess payment made was the result of wrong interpretation of the Rule that was applicable to them, for which the appellants cannot be held responsible. Rather, the whole confusion was because of inaction, negligence and carelessness of the officials concerned of the Government of Bihar. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant teachers submitted that majority of the beneficiaries have either retired or are on the verge of it. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case at hand and to avoid any hardship to the appellant teachers, we are of the view that no recovery of the amount that has been paid in excess to the appellant teachers should be made.” (13). In State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334 wherein this court examined the validity of an order passed by the State to recover the monetary gains wrongly extended to the beneficiaries employees in excess of their entitlements without any fault or misrepresentation at the behest of the recipient. This Court considered situations of hardship caused to an employee, if recovery is directed to reimburse the employer and disallowed the same, exempting the beneficiary employees from such recovery. (14). x x x x x (15). Having regard to the above, we are of the view that an attempt to recover the said increments after passage of ten years of his retirement is unjustified.” 11.So far as the plea taken by State that the petitioner submitted undertaking for recovery of the amount paid in excess is concerned. In undertaking, 8 no date is mentioned as to when, the said undertaking was executed. However, in the Affidavit (Annexure R/2), the date is mentioned as 08.04.2024 i.e. after the retirement of the petitioner from service. It appears that the Affidavit as also, the Undertaking are of subsequent to the retirement of the petitioner. Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Chhattisgarh & Ors Vs. Labha Ram Dhruv (supra) has considered the recovery of the amount which has been paid long ago, undertaking was stated to be submitted by employee and observed thus: “6. In Rafiq Masih (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court would observe that when the excess unauthorised payment is detected within a short period of time, it would be open for the employer to recover the same. Conversely, if the payment had been made a for a long duration of time, it would be iniquitous to make any recovery. Interference because an action is iniquitous, must really be perceived as, interference because the action is arbitrary. All arbitrary actions are truly, actions in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The logic of the action in the instant situation, is iniquitous, or arbitrary, or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, because it would be almost impossible for an employee to bear the financial burden, of a refund of payment received wrongfully for a long span of time. It is apparent, that a government employee is primarily dependent on his wages, and if a deduction is to be made from his/her wages, it should not be a deduction which would make it difficult for the employee to provide for the needs of his family. Besides food, clothing and shelter, an employee has to cater, not only to the education needs of those dependent upon him, but also their medical requirements, and a variety of sundry expenses. Based on the above consideration, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was of the view that if the mistake of making a wrongful payment is detected within five years, it would be open to the employer to recover the same. However, if the payment is made for a period in excess of five years, even though it would be open to the employer to correct the mistake, it would be extremely iniquitous and arbitrary to seek a refund of the payments mistakenly made to the employee. 7. With the above reasoning, the Hon’ble Supreme Court carved out a class of employees and the situations in which recoveries would be impermissible in law. The same has already been reproduced while quoting para-10 of the judgment in the matter of Jagdev Singh, Supra, in the preceding paragraph. 9 8. While applying the ratio in the matter of Jagdev Singh, Supra, paragraph-11 is not to be read in isolation, but the same has to be read conjointly with the facts of the matter in para-2 and the class of employees against whom recovery would be impermissible, as reproduced in para- 10. The requirement of submission of undertaking by the employee has to be provided under the Rules which was exactly the position in the matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagdev Singh, (Supra). 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 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 view of the above and on finding that in the cases at hand, the recovery of the excess payment has been made more than 12 years ago; the writ petitioners belong to Class-III cadre in the services of the State Government, and small amount has been paid to them in a long span of time, which has now accumulated and the recovery of substantial amount is to be made against them, we are inclined to hold that the Writ Appeals have no substance. They deserve to be and are hereby dismissed.” 12.In above facts of the case and decisions as referred above, it is clear that the recovery from the employees belonging to Class-II and Class-IV category (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service) is held to be 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. In the 10 case at hand, admittedly, petitioner was working on the Class-III post in the School Education Department and stood retired on 30th June 2025. 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 return the amount which has been paid by the respondents on their own without any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of petitioner. 13.If the case at hand is to be considered in light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Division Bench of this Court, recovery from the petitioner is impermissible because, the recovery is sought to be made from the petitioner after his retirement and that too, after about 01 year of his retirement, undertaking and affidavit is said to be executed is also after retirement. 14.For the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered view that the respondents have arbitrarily and illegally acted in deducting an amount of Rs. 3,68,198/-, from the retiral benefits (Gratuity) of the petitioner, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the letter/communication dated 31.05.2024 (Annexure P/1) is set-aside. Respondents are directed to refund the amount of Rs. 3,68,198/- deducted from the retiral benefits of the petitioner within a period of 03 months from date of receipt of copy of order, failing which, the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum till its realization. 15. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands allowed. 16. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY