Smt. Lalita Tigga vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2025 Latest Caselaw 3399 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Smt. Lalita Tigga vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 August, 2025

                                             1




Digitally signed
by RAMESH
KUMAR VATTI
                                                             2025:CGHC:43083
Date: 2025.08.28
17:42:42 +0530                                                              NAFR

                   HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                 WPS No. 4944 of 2022
  * - Smt. Lalita Tigga W/o Late Sukhsai Tigga Aged About 63 Years Retired
  Upper Division Teacher (Wrongly Mentioned As Headmistress In Retirement
  Order), R/o Village - Kharakona, Post - Bargidih, Tahsil - Dhourpur (Lundra),
  District - Surguja (C.G.)
                                                                  ... Petitioner
                                          Versus
  1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education
  Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District
  - Raipur (C.G.)
  2 - The District Education Officer District - Surguja (C.G.)
  3 - The Divisional Joint Director Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Ambikapur,
  District - Surguja (C.G.)
  4 - The District Treasury Officer Ambikapur, Surguja (C.G.)
  5 - The Block Education Officer Ambikapur, District - Surguja (C.G.)
                                                                     ... Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Harish Khuntiya, Advocate

For Respondents/State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Deputy Government Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 25/08/2025

1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned recovery order (Annexure P/1) and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to refund the recovered amount of Rs.26,124/- to the petitioner, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of recovery to its payment.

10.2 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may be given

2. The petitioner was holding post of Upper Division Teacher under the

respondents. She retired from services on account of superannuation

on 31.05.2021. Excess payment was made to the petitioner from

30.06.2016 to 09.03.2017 to the tune of Rs.26,124/-. The order of

recovery was passed by the office of Divisional Joint Director, Treasury

Accounts and Pension, Surguja, Division Ambikapur on 07.01.2022.

3. Mr. Harish Khuntiya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

submit that the petitioner was Class-III employee; the order of recovery

was passed after retirement and it would be very difficult for the

petitioner to refund the said amount. He would further contend that

there was no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner

and the benefit was extended by the department itself. He would pray

to set aside the order dated 07.01.2022

4. On the other hand, Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, learned Deputy

Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents would

oppose the submission made by Mr. Harish Khuntiya.

5. I have heard learned counsels for the parties.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab and

Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in 2015 AIR SCW

501 while deciding the said matter has laid down certain situations

under which the recovery is totally impermissible under law. The

situations as envisaged 9in the said judgment are as under:-

"(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."

7. Considering the fact that the petitioner was Class-III employee, the

order of recovery was issued after retirement on 07.01.2022 and there

was misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner and thus,

applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter

of Rafiq Masih (supra), the order impugned dated 07.01.2022 is

hereby quashed. The amount, if any, recovered shall be refunded to

the petitioner forthwith.

8. Consequently, the petition is allowed.

Sd/-

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

vatti