Chattisgarh High Court
Jeevrakhan Prasad Pandey vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 June, 2025
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 5488 of 2017
1 - Jeevrakhan Prasad Pandey S/o Late Shri Bhangi Prasad Pandey
Aged About 71 Years R/o Subhash Nagar, Kasaridih, Durg, Tahsil And
District Durg Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
Digitally
REKHA signed by
SINGH REKHA
SINGH
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School
Education, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur District Raipur
Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh
2 - Director, Directorate Fund, Account And Pension, Chhattisgarh Naya
Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh , District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Director, Fund, Account And Pension Durg Division District Durg
Chhattisgarh , District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
4 - Block Education Officer, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh , District :
Durg, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Abhinav Tiwari, Advocate holding the brief
of Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate
For State : Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
20.06.2025
1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-
"10.1) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
call the entire record pertaining to the case of petitioner
from the respondent authorities.
10.2) That, the Hon'ble Court by issuing appropriate writ
quash the impugned recovery order dated 18.09.2017
(Annexure P/1) passed by respondent no. 4.
10.3) Any other relief or relief (s) which this Hon'ble
Court may think proper in view of the facts and
circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted."
2. Mr. Tiwari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that an order of recovery has been passed against the
petitioner by the Block Education Officer, Durg (C.G.) on
18.09.2017 after retirement. He would further submit that the
excess payment was made in the salary of the petitioner, while he
was in service and the order has been passed after retirement. He
would also submit that the case of the petitioner is covered with
the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter
of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)
and others, 2015 AIR SCW 501.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Bajpayee, learned Panel Lawyer appearing
for the State would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Tiwari.
He would submit that the order dated 18.09.2017 is an intimation
and no specific order with regard to recovery has been passed
thus, the present petition is not maintainable and deserves to be
dismissed.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused
the documents placed on record.
5. In the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held 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."
6. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the respective
advocates, this petition is disposed of reserving liberty in favor of
the petitioner to make a representation before respondent
No.4/Block Education Officer along with a copy of the judgment
passed in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra) elaborating available
grounds. If such a representation is made, respondent No.4/Block
Education Officer is directed to decide the representation
expeditiously preferably within a period of 90 days from today
strictly in accordance with the law.
7. With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present petition
is disposed of.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Rekha
