Police Station Balod, District Balod (C.G.) v. Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL Date
Case Details
1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR NAFR WPS No. 8927 of 2023 Chhannu Lal Sahu S/o Late Shri Pitru Ram Sahu Aged About 63 Years R/o Amapara, Balod, Ward No. 14, Police Station Balod, District Balod (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL Date: 2025.09.19 18:02:40 +0530 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mantralaya Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector, Balod, District Balod (C.G.) 3 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Balod, District Balod (C.G.) 4- The Tahsildar Balod, District Balod (C.G.) 5 - The Joint Director Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) --- Respondent For Petitioner :
Legal Reasoning
“9. This Court in a catena of decisions has consistently held that if the excess amount was not paid on account of 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.” 8. In the light of above judgment, when the facts of the present case are 5 to be examined. The alleged excess payment was not made by any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra). Therefore, the impugned order dated 17.10.2023 (Annexure P/1) issued by the respondent authorities for recovery of the excess payment is set aside and the amount which has been recovered, if any, as excess payment , shall be refunded to the petitioner within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The admissible retiral dues which has not been paid to the petitioner, if any, will be released by the respondents within that period. 9. As an upshot, the instant petition stands allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions Certified Copy as per rules. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE AMIT PATEL
Arguments
Ms. Pranoti Das, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For Respondent/ State : Mr. Ajay Pandey, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 19.09.2025 1. By way of this petition, the Petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) :- “10.1. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the impugned order dated 17.10.2023 (Annexure P/1) 10.2. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to forthwith release the pension and other unpaid monetary benefits in favour of the petitioner, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of entitlement to its actual payment. 10.3 That, any other relief/order which may 2 deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.’’ 2. The facts of the case, as projected in the present writ petition, in brief that the petitioner was working as Patwari under the Respondent No. 1 and upon completion of age of superannuation, he retired from services on 30.06.2023. After the retirement, the petitioner has made representation for release of pension and other pensionary monetary benefits on 26.09.2023. However, all of sudden, without affording any opportunity of hearing, without serving any notice, after retirement of petitioner from services, vide impugned order dated 17.10.2023, the respondent No. 4 has issued impugned recovery order, whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit the excess payment through challan. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of recovery is per se illegal, bad-in-law, the petitioner is Class-III low paid employee and he has already been retired, therefore the impugned recovery order is against the law already settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "State of Punjab & Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Other s reported in 2015 (4) SCC 334", hence the impugned recovery order deserves to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, the State counsel has not opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. From perusal of records it is evident that the petitioner retired from services after attaining age of superannuation. At this juncture it would be relevant to notice the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 3 case of Rafq Masih (Supra) where in Supreme Court has clearly held certain situations under which recoveries would become impermissible. Paragraph 18 of the said judgment is reproduced herein 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 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 fve 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.” 7. The impugned recovery order was passed after few months of 4 retirement of the petitioner for recovery of amount from his retiral dues. Placing reliance upon the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Thomas Daniel Vs. State of Kerala and others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine has quashed the recovery of excess amount paid to the petitioner and observed in paragraph 9 as under:-