Chattisgarh High Court
Krishna Prasad Thakur vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 April, 2025
1
Digitally
signed by
SHOAIB
SHOAIB ANWAR
2025:CGHC:16797
ANWAR Date:
2025.04.15
20:27:58
+0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 3277 of 2023
1 - Krishna Prasad Thakur S/o Late Shri Raghunandan Singh Thakur
Aged About 61 Years R/o New Rajendra Nagar, Qtr. No. 272, Raipur,
P.S. - New Rajendra Nagar, Tahsil And District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
... Petitioner(s)
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 (Chhattisgarh)
2 - Director General Of Police (D G P) Police Headquarter (P H Q), Sector
-19, 1st Floor, Atal Nagar, P.S. And Post - Rakhi, Nawa Raipur, District
Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
3 - Inspector General Of Police (I G P) Crime Investigation Department (C
I D) , Police Headquarter (P H Q), Sector- 19, 1st Floor, Atal Nagar, P.S.
And Post - Rakhi, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
4 - Assistant Director (Finance) O/o. Assistant Director (Finance), Police
Headquarter (P H Q), Sector -19, 1st Floor, Atal Nagar, P.S. And Post -
Rakhi, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
5 - Superintendent Of Police (S P) O/o. Superintendent Of Police, Crime
2
Investigation Department (C I D), Police Headquarter (P H Q), Sector -
19, 1st Floor, Atal Nagar, P.S. And Post - Rakhi, Nawa Raipur, District
Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
... Respondent(s)
(Cause title taken from CIS)
For Petitioner(s) : Shri Abhishek Pandey, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Shri Sabyasachi Choubey, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Order on Board
09.04.2025
1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner who is retired Head
Constable seeking quashment of the order of recovery (Annexure
P/2) dated 03.08.2022 issued by the respondent no. 5/
Superintendent of Police, CID Raipur.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was a
Class-III employee and due to wrong fixation of pay the alleged
excess payment has been made to the petitioner from the year 2007
till 0.07.2021. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
the pay fixation has been made by the respondent on their own and
the petitioner has not in any manner involved with the fixation of pay
and being a Class-III employee, the excess payment made due to
wrong committed by the respondent cannot be recovered after such
a belated stage, even that is after the retirement of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner refers the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab and others
vs.Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, reported in (2015)
4 SCC 344.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that it is not in dispute
that the petitioner is a Class-III employee, however the judgment in
the matter of State of Punjab and others vs.Rafiq Masih (White
Washer) and others, is not completely applied to the case of the
petitioner, because the petitioner retired on 13.11.2023 and the
recovery order of the excess payment made prior to 5 years can
only be not recoverable, however the amount of excess payment
which has been made just before 5 years of retirement that can be
recovered and hence the order of recovery is just and proper.
4. I have perused the pleadings as well as order of recovery.
5. It appears that excess payment has been made due to wrong
fixation of pay from the year 2007 to the year 2021, the petitioner
retired on 13.11.2023. Looking to the judgment delivered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra),
wherein it has observed as under:-
"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:
(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."
6. As the petitioner retired on 13.11.2023 and the recovery order has
been issued on 01.07.2022, the recovery order as far as the period
beyond 5 years from the date of recovery cannot be sustainable, the
recovery for the excess payment paid to the petitioner from
26.08.2007 to 01.07.2016 is quashed, however as far as the
recovery for the excess payment made to the petitioner from
01.07.2017 to 01.07.2021, the respondent may recover the same
by providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, by giving an
opportunity to explain why the amount paid in excess to the
petitioner shall not be recovered from the petitioner, hence the writ
petition is partly allowed. The impugned order for recovery of
excess payment made from 01.07.2008 to 01.07.2016 is quashed.
From 01.07.2017 to 01.07.2021, the respondent may recover the
same by providing opportunity, the State is at liberty to recover the
same, by passing a separate order in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru)
Judge
Shoaib
