1 / 6 2026:CGHC:6594 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 710 of 2024 • Rati Ram Sonwani S/o Late Shri Heera Lal Sonwani Aged About 63 Years R/o Ward No. 13, Chorbhatti, P.S. Pathariya, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. The District Education Officer Distt. Mungeli, C.G. 3. The Divisional Joint Director Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4. The District Treasury Officer Mungeli, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 5. The Block Education Officer Pathariya, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. G.L. Uike, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 05/02/2026 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs. “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned recovery order (Annexure P-1) and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to refund the recovered amount of Rs. 2,92,365 to the petitioner, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of recovery to its payment. 10.2 That, any other relief/ order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including award of the cost of the petition may be given.” PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 6 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner while working on the post of Upper Division Teacher stood retire from service upon attaining age of superannuation on 30.04.2023. During process of payment of retiral dues, respondent-authorities while preparing authority letter for disbursement of gratuity have mentioned that a sum of Rs. 2,92,365 is recoverable from petitioner on the ground that excess payment has been made to petitioner during the period when petitioner was in service. Respondent-authorities have deducted sum of Rs. 2,92,365 from the account for which petitioner was entitled. It is contention of learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner is Class-III employee, however, retired from service on 30.04.2023 and therefore also after retirement recovery of amount if paid in excess cannot be made from him. Therefore, action on the part of respondent-department in deducting the amount as mentioned towards excess payment is per se illegal and arbitrary. In support of his contention he places reliance upon decision in case of State of Punjab & ors vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & ors, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, Thomas Daniel vs. State of Kerala reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 536. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and submits that petitioner gave undertaking for adjusting the excess amount paid to him and therefore petitioner at this stage could not be permitted to challenge the deduction made by the respondent- department pursuant to the undertaking given by him. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. From the arguments which is advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties it is not in dispute that petitioner stood retired from post of Upper Division Teacher which is Class-III post. It is also not in dispute that at the time of fixation of pay, no undertaking was obtained from the petitioner and only after superannuation, undertaking/ affidavit has been obtained by the 3 / 6 respondent-department to clear the retiral dues for adjustment of excess payment. Recovery which is sought from petitioner is towards excess payment made to him during the period while he was in service. It is not the case of respondents that excess payment is made to petitioner due to misrepresentation or suppression of fact or any fraud played by petitioner with respondent-department. 6. 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. Further in the case of Thomas Daniel (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered its earlier decision in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) and set aside the order of recovery from the appellant therein. In Para-18 of the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) 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 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 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 4 / 6 extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover. 7. So far submission of learned counsel for the State that petitioner has given undertaking/ consent for adjustment of the excess amount paid to him by adjusting from the payable retiral dues and thereafter recovery has been done. Perusal of Annexure R-1 enclosed along with return filed by State would show that consent from the petitioner is obtained after his retirement from the service and at the time of issuance of gratuity payable. 8. In the aforementioned facts of case, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has submitted the consent/ undertaking through an affidavit for adjustment of the amount and settlement of retiral dues would be under the pressure and threat that he may not be paid retiral dues. 9. 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 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 5 / 6 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” 10. 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 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 and that too after retirement from the services. 11. In the case at hand, admittedly, petitioner was holding a post of Class-III in the School Education Department and stood retired on 30th April 2023. It is also not the case of respondents that petitioner had received excess payment by practicing fraud or by making misrepresentation. Thus, petitioner could not have been 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. 12. 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. 13. Consequently, writ petition is allowed and the impugned recovery order Annexure P-1 dated 07.11.2023, so far as it relates to recovery of amount of Rs. 2,92,365, is hereby quashed. Respondents are directed to return back the amount so recovered from petitioner from the retiral dues of petitioner 6 / 6 towards recovery of excess payment, within a further period of 03 months from the date of receipt of order passed by this Court, failing which the recovered amount shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of its recovery till its realization. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) pwn JUDGE