Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home/police Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya
Case Details
1 RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2025:CGHC:48832 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2310 of 2023 1 - Smt. Sumitra Bhagat W/o Late Shri Sahlu Ram Bhagat Aged About 45 Years R/o Quarter No. H/6, 2nd Battalion, Sakri Police Station And Tahsil- Sakri, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home/police Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Police Station And Post Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Inspector General Of Police (I G P) Chhattisgarh Armed Force (C A F), Police Head Quarter (P H Q), Sector-19, Police Station And Post- Rakhi, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Divisional Joint Director O/o Divisional Joint Director, Treasury- Accounts And Pension, Raipur Division, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Divisional Joint Director O/o Divisional Joint Director, Treasury- Accounts And Pension, Bilaspur Division, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Commandant O/o Commandant, Chhattisgarh Armed Force, 2nd Battalion, Sakri, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 6 - Chief Manager State Bank Of India, Central Pension Processing Cell, Kuthuhery Branch Premises, Kuthuhery Chowk, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 7 - Branch Manager State Bank Of India, Branch- Kathakoni, Tahsil- Sakri, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Dy. G.A. For State Bank of India : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad 23/09/2025 Order on Board 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “i. 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. ii. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/quash the impugned recovery order of Petitioner dated 10.02.2023 issued by Respondent No. 6 Chief 3 Manager, Central Pension Processing Cell, SBI Raipur (Annexure P/5). Iii. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct respondent authorities to refund the whole recovered amount to the petitioner with 10% interest which has been recovered from the petitioner due to recovery order dated 10.02.2023. iv. 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 the husband of the petitioner, namely Late Sahlu Ram Bhagat, was employed as a Constable in the 2nd Battalion, Sakri, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), and during his tenure of service, he unfortunately passed away on 19.08.2011. Following his demise, the petitioner became entitled to receive family pension, which was duly sanctioned and released by respondent No. 4, the Divisional Joint Director, starting from March 2011. However, after the passage of over eleven years since the unfortunate death of the petitioner’s husband, without issuing any prior show-cause notice, without seeking any explanation, and without affording the petitioner any opportunity for a hearing, respondent No. 6, the Chief Manager of 4 the Central Pension Processing Cell, Raipur, together with respondent No. 7, the Branch Manager of SBI, Kathakoni, Bilaspur, initiated arbitrary recovery proceedings by deducting pensionary amounts from the petitioner’s sanctioned family pension. Aggrieved by this unilateral and unjust action, the petitioner sought information under the Right to Information Act on 28.11.2022 from Respondent No. 7, but no recovery order was furnished to her, thereby compounding the lack of transparency. Subsequently, on 10.02.2023, the Respondent No. 6 issued a recovery order stating that from February 2014 to January 2023, an excess pensionary amount had been mistakenly paid to the petitioner, mandating recovery of Rs. 9,266/- per month from the petitioner’s pension, an act which is arbitrary, illegal, and devoid of any lawful authority. The petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the recent judgment dated 13.03.2023 in WP(S) No. 6119/2021 (Ram Narayan Sori Vs. State of CG & Others), as well as the binding precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhagwan Shukla Vs. Union of India & Others, wherein it was categorically held that any recovery proceedings constitute a civil consequence that mandates issuance of a show-cause notice and a reasonable opportunity of hearing before such action can be lawfully taken. The failure of the respondents to comply with these legal mandates has resulted in a violation of the petitioner’s 5 fundamental rights and principles of natural justice, thereby rendering the impugned recovery order illegal, unjust, and liable to be quashed and set aside by this Hon’ble Court. He contended that the issue with regard to recovery of the excess payment made to the employees in particular, the Class III and Class IV employees has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Ors. (2015) 4 SCC 334 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the recovery of excess payment made to the Class III and Class IV employee to be impermissible. He also contended that following the decision in the case of Rafiq Masih (Supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Thomas Daniel Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. (2022 SCC OnLine SC 536) has also allowed the Appeal filed by the appellant therein. He further submits that no recovery has been made from the petitioner. 3. On the other hand, Mr. P.R. Patankar, learned counsel appearing for the State Bank of India would oppose the submission made by counsel for the petitioner and submit that though the excess payment has been made in the Extraordinary Pension to the petitioner, however she was not entitled to Dearness Allowance. It is submitted that due to the Bank's mistake, the benefit was wrongly extended. He would further submit that in terms of the circulars and guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India and Government of 6 India, the Bank is empowered to recover such excess payment. He also submitted that undertakings was given by the petitioner to the effect that any loss suffered by the Bank would be recoverable from her. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (Supra) has 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. (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. 7 (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. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (2009) 3 SCC 475 considering the issued with regard to recovery of excess payment made to the petitioner therein has held as under : “57. This Court, in a catena of decisions, has granted relief against recovery of excess payment of emoluments/allowances if (A) the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, and (b) 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. 59. Undoubtedly, the excess amount that has been paid to the appellants - teachers was not because of 8 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 appellants-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 appellants-teachers, we are of the view that no recovery of the amount that has been paid in excess to the appellants-teachers should be made.” 7. In a recent judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jogeswar Sahoo & Ors vs. The District Judge, Cuttack & Ors 9 reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 724 has reiterated and confirmed the dictum laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra) and Thomas Daniel (supra) holding that recovery cannot be made from the employee in case no fraud or misrepresentation was made by the employee. 8. In light of the above authoritative judgments, facts of the present case are to be examined. The alleged excess payment was not made by any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner. In the considered opinion of this Court, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra), Thomas Daniel (supra) and Jogeswar Sahoo (supra). Therefore, the impugned order dated 10.2.2023 (Annexure P/5) is hereby set aside. 9. With the aforementioned observation, writ petition is allowed. 10. If any amount is recovered pursuant to the impugned recovery order, the same shall be refunded to the petitioner within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, it shall carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum. SD/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat