Chattisgarh High Court
Gumani Ram Sonkhutia vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 29 July, 2025
1
SMT
NIRMALA
RAO
2025:CGHC:37080
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 3550 of 2021
1 - Gumani Ram Sonkhutia S/o Ram Ji Sonkhutia Aged About 58 Years Working As
Head Master, Govt. Primary School Kaparmenta, District Balod Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education,
Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur
Chhattisgarh
2 - Principal Secretary Department Of Finance, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar
District Raipur Chhattisgarh
3 - District Education Officer District Balod Chhattisgarh
4 - Block Education Officer District Balod Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner : Mr. Naveen Nirala, Advocate.
For State/Respondents : Mr. Topilal Bareth, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
29.07.2025
1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:
"10.1 That, petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble
Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/quash the impugned
recovery order dated 14.06.2021 (ANNEXURE P/1).
10.2 That, petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble
Court may kindly order writ of appropriate nature directing the
respondents to continue the salary as per increased pay
grade, prohibiting recovery.
10.3 Any other relief or reliefs that may be deemed fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may be also
kindly be granted."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, at the relevant
time, the petitioner was a Class-III employee holding the post of Head
Master, Govt. Primary School, Kaparmenta, District Balod,
Chhattisgarh. He would contend that on 14.6.2021, respondent No.4
issued an order for the recovery of Rs.1,24,009/-, on the ground that
the salary of the petitioner was wrongly fixed in July, 2008 and this
mistake continued till December, 2016. He would submit that, based
on this premise, respondent No.4 passed the order of recovery. 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 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 July, 2008 and continued till
December, 2016; 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. The respondents are
directed to refund the recovered amount to the petitioner within a
period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order,
otherwise, the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 5% per annum.
8. With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Nimmi
