Chattisgarh High Court
Chhakkan Lal Gupta vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 July, 2025
1
SMT
NIRMALA
RAO
2025:CGHC:36289
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 984 of 2021
1 - Chhakkan Lal Gupta S/o Late Yadunandan Sao Aged About 63 Years Retired
From The Post Assistant Grade - 3, Water Resources Division-1, Ambikapur Distt.-
Surguja (Chhattisgarh) R/o Village- Aragahi, Post- Bhanwarmal, Distt.- Balrampur-
Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh), District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of Water Resources
Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
2 - The Chief Engineer Hasdev Ganga Kachhar, Water Resources Department
Ambikapur, Distt.- Surguja (Chhattisgarh), District : Surguja (Ambikapur),
Chhattisgarh
3 - The Executive Engineer Water Resources Department Division No. 1,
Ambikapur, Distt.- Surguja (Chhattisgarh), District : Surguja (Ambikapur),
Chhattisgarh
4 - Joint Director Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja
(Chhattisgarh), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner : Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate.
For State/Respondents : Mr. Topilal Bareth, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
25.07.2025
1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:
"10.1. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-
aside the impugned order dated 28.9.2019 issued by
respondent no.4 for recovery of Rs-89,376/- from the
pension/gratuity amount of the petitioner no. 4 ANNEXURE
P/1.
10.2 Any other relief or reliefs may also be granted to the
petitioner which this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, at the relevant
time, the petitioner was a Class-III employee holding the post of
Assistant Grade-III in the Water Resources Department, Division-1,
Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. He would contend that on
28.9.2019, respondent No.4 issued an order for the recovery of
Rs.89,376/-, on the ground that the salary of the petitioner was wrongly
fixed in January, 1996 and this mistake continued till December, 2015.
He would submit that, based on this premise, respondent No.4 passed
the order of recovery. He He has placed reliance on the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab and Others
vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), reported in 2015 AIR SCW 501 and
in the matter of Jogeswar Sahoo and Ors. vs. The District Judge,
Cuttack and Ors., arising out of SP(C) No. 5918 of 2024.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the
submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that
due to mistake the pay of the petitioner was wrongly fixed at higher
side and when this fact was detected, a prompt decision was taken for
recovery. He would submit that respondent No.4 has passed an order
of recovery taking into consideration all aspects of the case. He would
also submit that an undertaking was also given by the petitioner.
4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents
available on record.
5. Taking into consideration the fact that the pay of the petitioner was
wrongly fixed by the department itself in January, 1996 and continued
till December, 2015; that the petitioner is a Class-III government
servant, that there was no misrepresentation on the part of the
petitioner; and that the Chhattisgarh Revision of Pay Rules, 2009 &
2017 contain no provision with regard to undertaking, any such
undertaking rendered by the petitioner would not be binding.
Therefore, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
matter of State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih (White
Washer) (supra) will apply in toto.
6. In the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
in para-18 as under:-
"18. 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."
7. Considering the facts of the present case and the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, the order (Annexure-P/1) issued by the
respondent authorities is hereby quashed. If any amount has been
recovered from the petitioner, same shall be refunded forthwith.
8. With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Nimmi
