Punjab and Ors v. Rafiq Masih
Case Details
1 RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2025:CGHC:49063 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9340 of 2023 1 - Rajeshwar Singh Rajput S/o Shri Karan Singh Rajput Aged About 62 Years R/o M I G - 84, Yadunandan Nagar, Tifra, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Mantralaya New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Joint Director Treasury Account And Pension Department, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - District Education Officer Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Principal Government Higher Secondary School Tifra, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey, G.A. 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad 24/09/2025 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 quash Annexure P-1 and also refund the recovered amount from the gratuity with 18% interest within stipulated time, in the interest of justice. (ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without any notice and without assigning any reason a deduction amounting to Rs. 95,373/- has been deducted from the retiral dues of the petitioner. The petitioner is a retired class-III employee. It has been argued that before deduction neither any notice has been given nor any reason has been assigned to the petitioner and the petitioner has retired on 31.5.2023 and thereafter this deduction has been made. After his retirement this deduction has been directed to be made.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 3 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, learned counsel for the Respondents/State submits that since wrong fixation has been mentioned in the service book as such it is required to be recovered from the petitioner as excessive amount has been paid which is apparent from the fixation of pay scale itself. 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 4 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 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 5 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 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 6 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 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 recovery order amounting to Rs. 95,373/- 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 7 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