Nafr High Court
Case Details
Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.08.06 14:42:05 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:38761 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5450 of 2021 1 - Kishan Lal Yadav S/o Shri Mansingh Yadav Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Taroud, Tahsil And District Balod, Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 2 - Harish Kumar Yadav S/o Late Ram Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Narra, Tahsil And District Balod, Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 3 - Aniruddha Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Narayan Prasad Sahu Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Sakrud, Post Rahud, Tahsil Gunderdehe, District Balod, Chhattisgarh : Chhattisgarh., District Balod,
Legal Reasoning
4 - Bhima Bharti W/o Shri Santosh Khobragade Aged About 47 Years R/o Jungera, Tahsil And District Balod, Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 5 - Hemlal Sahare S/o Late Murha Ram Sahare Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Budhapara, Tahsil And District Balod, Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 6 - Smt. Yougni Sudhakar W/o Shri Bhanupratap Sudhakar Aged About 47 Years R/o Shiv Colony Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 7 - Ramchand Kaur S/o Shri Parauram Kaur Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Aodgaon, Post Ghoriya, Tahsil Doundi, District Balod, Chhattisgarh., District : Chhattisgarh Balod, 8 - Smt. Vandana Kamble W/o Shri Shishupal Kamble Aged About 47 Years R/o Block No. 36 House No. N.E. Nirmala Sector, Dallirajhara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh : Chhattisgarh., District Balod, 9 - Smt. Meena Netam W/o Shri Ramesh Kumar Netam Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Bhaismudi, Post Pond, District Balod, Chhattisgarh., District : Chhattisgarh Balod, 10 - Smt. Kirtika Sahu S/o Late Chovaram Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Baghmara District Balod, Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 11 - Bishelal Sahu S/o Shri Ghanaram Sahu Aged About 56 Years R/o Village And Post Barhi, Tahsil And District Balod, Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 2 12 - Domar Singh Sahu S/o Shri Ram Prasad Sahu Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Bodki, Tahsil Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 13 - Nutan Kumar Gangrale S/o Shri Dharmu Singh Gangrale Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Latabod, Tahsil Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh District Balod, : 14 - Gamneshwar Singh Taram S/o Shri Brijlal Taram Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Karhi Bhadar, Tahsil And District Balod, Chhattisgarh., District : Chhattisgarh Balod, 15 - Dhramendra Kumar S/o Shri Atiram Shraven Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Bhanpuri, Tahsil Sukar, District Balod, Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 16 - Sunil Kumar Thakur S/o Late Fulsingh Thakur Aged About 50 Years R/o Ward No. 11 Muthara Nagar, Chikhalakasa, Dallirajhara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh : Chhattisgarh., District Balod, 17 - Devlas Bhuarya S/o Shri Bhagwaniram Aged About 47 Years R/o Doundi, District Balod, Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 18 - Sachinand Sharma S/o Shri Mansharam Sharma Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Doundi, House No. 121 Ward No. 02 District Balod, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh District Balod, : 19 - Tikeshwar Sinha S/o Late Jaitram Sinha Aged About 48 Years R/o Ganjpara, Ward No. 11 Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 20 - Tukaram Sahu S/o Shri Anand Ram Sahu Aged About 44 Years R/o Village And Post Gujra, Tahsil Doundi, District Balod, Chhattisgarh., District : Chhattisgarh Balod, 21 - Smt. Khileshwari Sahu W/o Pannalal Sahu Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Kuvagondi Tahsil And District Balod, Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 22 - Ashok Kumar Chandrakar S/o Shri Sonsay Chandrakar Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Doundi, Pisdapara Ward No. 1 Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh : Chhattisgarh., District Balod, 23 - Khamhan Lal Sahu S/o Shri Kartik Ram Sahu Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Ukarai, Ward No. 15 Tahsil Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh District Balod, : 24 - Smt. Gangotri Sahu W/o Latew Suresh Kumar Sahu Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Doundi, Ward No. 13, Tahsil Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh : Chhattisgarh., District Balod, 25 - Smt. Sudha Sahu W/o Shri M.R. Sahu Aged About 44 Years R/o Village 3 Bhanpuri, Gurur, Tahsil And District Balod, Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 26 - Smt. Sarita D/o Shri P.R. Khare Aged About 43 Years R/o Village And Post Chikhalakasa, Ward No. 03, Tahsil And District Balod, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh District Balod, : 27 - Baldev Singh Sahu S/o Late Derharam Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Shohpur, Tahsil Gurur, District Balod, Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 28 - Smt. Mamta W/o Shri Santosh Kumar Gharana Aged About 40 Years R/o Dallirajhara, Tahsil And District Balod, Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 29 - Pradhuman Kumar Hirwani S/o Shri Rohit Kumar Hirwani Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Pateli, Tahsil Doundi, District Balod, Chhattisgarh., District : Chhattisgarh Balod, 30 - Smt. Cheman Dewangan W/o Shri Denuram Dewangan Aged About 42 Years R/o Chrishan Colony Ward No. 6 Bhandaripara, Doundi, District Balod, Chhattisgarh : Chhattisgarh., District Balod, 31 - Khilawan Singh Sahu S/o Shri Ghanaram Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Manpur (Khamhar Tola), Tahsil Doundi, District Balod, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh District Balod, : 32 - Vishnu Singh Sahu S/o Late Ajit Singh Sahu Aged About 44 Years R/o Village Amapara, Ward No. 12 Balod, Tahsil And District Balod, Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh : Chhattisgarh., Raipur, District 2 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat, Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh : Chhattisgarh., District Balod, 3 - District Education Officer Balod, District Balod, Chhattisgarh., District : Chhattisgarh Balod, 4 - Block Education Officer Doundi, District Balod, Chhattisgarh., District : Chhattisgarh Balod, 5 - Accountant General Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Ms. Pratibha Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate 4 For State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, P.L. For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate along with Mr. Shivam Agrawal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 05-08-2025 1) By way of this petition, the petitioners have sought the following reliefs:- 10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/ set-aside the letters dated 07.08.2021 (Annexure P-1), passed by the respondent No. 4. 10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other ancillary relief, as it may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10.3 Cost of the petitioner. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that initially, the petitioners were appointed to the posts of Assistant Teacher (Panchayat). A circular was issued by the State Government on 17.05.2013, whereby the petitioners were deemed entitled to receive salary and allowances at par with government teachers after completion of 8 years of service. She further submits that the benefits were extended to the petitioners by the department and they received those benefits till the year 2021 and vide notice dated 07.08.2021, the petitioners were directed to refund the excess payment made to them under the heads of “house rent allowance”, “medical allowance”, “staying allowance” and “project allowance” ranging between Rs. 9,000/- to Rs. 11,000/-. She contends that the petitioners are class-II and III employees working under the respondent-department and the aforementioned benefits were extended by the department itself, which continued for a period of long nine years and thereafter, notices/orders were issued to the petitioners. She further contends that there was no misrepresentation on the part of 5 petitioners and the case is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others1. She prays to allow this petition. 3) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective respondents would oppose. They would submit that though the petitioners were not entitled to receive the allowances at par with government teachers but they were paid the excess amount under those heads and when the said mistake was detected, the authority concerned took a decision to recover the amount of excess payment ranging from 9000 to 11000 from each of the petitioners vide notices/orders dated 07.08.2021. 4) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5) Admittedly, the benefits were extended to the petitioners working on the post of Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) by the department itself pursuant to a circular dated 17.05.2013, which continued till 07.08.2021, and it is clear that there was no misrepresentation on their part. The Block Education Officer Doundi, District Balod, vide orders dated 07.08.2021, ordered the recovery of meagre amounts ranging between Rs. 9,000/- to Rs. 11,000/- from the petitioners after a period of nine years. 6) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra) observed that:- 10. In State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (Supra) this Court held that while it is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship where payments have mistakenly been made by an employer, in the following situations, a recovery by the employer would be impermissible in law: 1. (2015) 4 SCC 334 6 (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. 11. The principle enunciated in Proposition (ii) above cannot apply to a situation such as in the present case. In the present case, the officer to whom the payment was made in the first instance was clearly placed on notice that any payment found to have been made in excess would be required to be refunded. The officer furnished an undertaking while opting for the revised pay scale. He is bound by the undertaking. 7) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra), notices/orders of recovery issued by respondent No. 4 dated 07.08.2021, are hereby quashed. 8) Accordingly, this petition stands allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya