Chattisgarh High Court
Kartik Halder vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 29 July, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:36895
NAFR
SMT
NIRMALA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAO
WPS No. 511 of 2017
1 - Kartik Halder S/o Late Shri Madan Mohan Halder, Aged About 51 Years
Presently Posted And Working As Assistant Grade Ill, Civil Hospital, Mana, District
Raipur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health And Family
Welfare, Mahanadi Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Post Office And Police Station Naya
Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh
2 - Director, Directorate Of Health Services, Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya
Raipur, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Collector, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4 - Chief Medical And Health Officer, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
5 - Block Medical Officer, Community Health Center, Dharshva, Raipur
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
6 - Joint Director Finance Section , Directorate Of Health Services, Chhattisgarh,
Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur, District
Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner : Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate holding the brief
of Shri Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate.
For State/Respondents : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, 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:
"i. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the
impugned order dated 24/2/2015 (Annexure P/1) passed by
the respondent No.5/Block Medical Officer, Community
Center, Dharshva, Raipur. Health
ii. Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner.
Iii. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and
proper, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the
interest of justice."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, at the relevant
time, the petitioner was a Class-III employee holding the post of Lower
Division Clerk, Department of Health & Family Welfare, District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh. He would contend that on 24.2.2025, respondent No.5
issued an order for the recovery of Rs.5,39,020/-, on the ground that
the salary of the petitioner was wrongly fixed in January, 2006 and this
mistake continued till October, 2014. He would submit that, based on
this premise, respondent No.5 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.5 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, 2006 and continued
till October, 2014; 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
