High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1/4 HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR 2025:CGHC:8424 NAFR WPS No. 4711 of 20 24
Legal Reasoning
• Dilip Kumar Vaishnav (Retd. Constable) S/o Late Shri G. D. Vaishnav Aged About 63 Years R/o Bharti Nagar, R-5, Near Azam Kirana Store, Bilaspur, P. S. Civil Lines, Tahsil and District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ------Petitioner 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 (IGP) O/o Inspector General of Police, Near Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur Range, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Divisional Joint Director O/o Divisional Joint Director, Treasury- Accounts and Pension, Bilaspur Division, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4. Superintendent of Police (SP) O/o Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. -------Respondents WPS No. 4852 of 20 24 • Sunderlal Shriwas S/o Late Shri Chandulal Shriwas Aged About 63 Years (Retd. Head Constable), R/o Street No. 5, Laddu Bhaijan Gali, Bharti Nagar, Bilaspur, P.S. Civil Lines, Tahsil And Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) ------Petitioner VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of Home/police, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, Police Station And Post - Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2. Inspector General of Police (IGP) O/o Inspector General of Police, Near Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur Range, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Divisional Joint Director O/o Divisional Joint Director, Treasury - Accounts And Pension, Bilaspur Division, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Superintendent of Police (SP) O/o Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA -------Respondents 2/4 WPS No. 5113 of 2024 • Ashwani Kumar Tandon (Retd. Inspector) S/o Late Shri Ramrai Tandon, Aged About 63 Years, R/o. Matakarma Ward Bhatapara, Behind Pani Tanki, P.S. And Tahsil- Bhatapara, Distt- Baloda Bazar- Bhata Para ( C.G.). ---Petitioner Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through- Its Secretary, Department of Home/police, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, Police Station And Post- Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur ( C.G). 2. Director General of Police ( DGP), Police Head Quarter ( Phq), Sector- 19, P.S. And Post - Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur ( C.G.). 3. Divisional Joint Director O/o. Divisional Joint Director, Treasury- Accounts And Pension , Durg Division, Distt. Durg ( C.G.). 4. Superintendent of Police (SP), Tele Communication office of Superintendent of Police Telecommunication, Sector- 6, Bhilai Zone, Bhilai, Distt- Durg ( C.G.). --- Respondents WPS No. 5178 of 2024 • Rajeev Lochan Singh S/o Shri Ramadhar Singh Aged About 63 Years R/o Village - Panti, Post - Barahula, Tahsil - Jawa P.S. Atrela District Rewa (M.P.) ---Petitioner Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Department of Home/police Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralay, Police Station And Post - Rakhi Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G. Inspector General of Police (IGP) O/o Inspector General of Police, Raipur Range Shankar Nagar, District Raipur (C.G. 2. 3. Divisional Joint Director O/o Divisional Joint Director, Treasury - Accounts And Pension Raipur Division, District Raipur (C.G.) 4. Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIGP) Senior Superintendent of Police (Sp) O/o Digp / Senior Superintendent of Police , Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 5. Senior Superintendent of Police office office of Senior Superintendent of Police Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) 6. Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), office of Superintendent of Police, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) --- Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate For Respondent-State: Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Dy. Govt. Adv. 3/4 Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad , Judg e
Decision
ORDER 18/02/2025 1. Heard. 2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that all the matters relate to recovery of amount from the petitioners. He contended that the petitioners are holding Class-III post and according to the decision in case of State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 recovery of the payment made mistakenly to Class-III employees is not permissible. The matters are covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (supra) and looking to the aforesaid aspect, recovery orders are liable to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the amount recovered is of public exchequer and the recovery orders have rightly been passed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the documents annexed in the writ petitions. 5. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (supra) has held as under: “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 4/4 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. 19. We are informed by the learned counsel representing the appellant- State of Punjab, that all the cases in this bunch of appeals, would undisputedly fall within the first four categories delineated hereinabove. In the appeals referred to above, therefore, the impugned order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana (quashing the order of recovery), shall be deemed to have been upheld, for the reasons recorded above.” 6. Taking into consideration facts and circumstances of the case, considering the fact that the information regarding recovery has been passed after 05 years, in the considered opinion of this Court, the case of petitioners are squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (supra), therefore, the impugned orders issued by the respondents authorities for recovery of excess payment are hereby set aside. The excess amount, if any, recovered from each of the petitioners is directed to be refunded back as also the amount of service benefits withheld due to reason of recovery of amount is also directed to be released to petitioners within a further period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, these writ petitions are allowed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge pwn