[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Ram Kumar Soni vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 April, 2026
1
Digitally signed
by RAMESH
KUMAR VATTI
Date: 2026.04.15
2026:CGHC:16872
19:02:22 +0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 3097 of 2022
* - Ram Kumar Soni S/o Late Pyarelal Soni Aged About 58 Years Occupation-
Assistant Internal Account Examiner And Taxation Officer Under The Office Of
Janpad Panchayat Dondi Lohara, District- Balod (C.G.)
... Petitioner
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Panchayat And Social Welfare
Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Mantralaya, District Raipur (C.G.)
2 - The Director Directorate Of Panchayat And Social Welfare Department,
Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Mantralaya, District Raipur (C.G.)
3 - The Collector Balod District Balod (C.G.)
4 - The Deputy Director Panchayat And Social Welfare Department Balod
District Balod (C.G.)
5 - The Chief Executive Officer Jila Panchayat Balod District- Balod (C.G.)
6 - The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Dondi Lohara, District
Balod (C.G.)
7 - The Joint Director Treasury, Account And Pension Durg, District Durg
(C.G.)
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Prakash Tiwari, Advocate
For Respondents No. 1 to 4/ : Mr. Abhyuday Tripathi, Panel Lawyer
State
For Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Ajit Singh, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
13/04/2026
1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-
"10.1 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to call for
the entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner.
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-
aside the recovery proceeding initiated by the respondent no.
4 against the petitioner.
10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct
the respondent no. 6 to remit back the recovered amount to
the tune of Rs.2,20,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a.
10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant
any other relief, as it may deem fit.
10.5 Cost of the petition may also be given."
2. Mr. Prakash Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that at the relevant time, the petitioner was posted on post of
Assistant Internal Account Examiner under respondent No. 6. He would
submit that there was internal communication between the Deputy
Director Panchayat, District Balod and the Chief Executive Officer,
Janpad Panchayat Dondi Lohara, wherein recommendation was made
for recovery of excess payment made to the petitioner. Mr. Tiwari would
submit that pursuant to communication dated 14.03.2022, respondent
No. 6 started recovery of Rs.5,000/- per month from salary of the
petitioner. He would contend that when an information was sought
under Right to Information and it was informed by the Chief Executive
Officer, Janpad Panchayat Dondi Lohara, District Balod that there is an
order of recovery to the tune of Rs.4,33,336/- and pursuant to said
order Rs.5,000/- per month is being deducted from salary of the
petitioner. He would contend that order of recovery was never served
upon the petitioner, but Rs.2,20,000/- has already deducted and
outstanding amount is Rs.2,13,336/-. He would submit that the order of
recovery has been issued as the pay scale of the petitioner was
wrongly fixed at higher side by the department. He would submit that
there was no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner and the
petitioner is a Class-III employee and he has got retired from services
in the month of September, 2025. Thus, the case of the petitioner is
squarely covered with the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the matter of State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih
(White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respective
respondents would oppose.
4. Mr. Ajit Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 6 would
submit that the pay scale of the petitioner was wrongly fixed at higher
side and when this fact was detected, decision was taken to recover
the amount of excess payment to the tune of Rs.4,33,336/-. He would
submit that an undertaking was given by the petitioner at the time of
revision of pay and same would be binding upon the petitioner. He
would contend that the petition deserves to be dismissed.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents.
6. Admittedly, pay scale of the petitioner was revised by respondent No. 6
and there was no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the
petitioner and at the same time an undertaking was given and same is
part of return filed by respondent No. 6, but such undertaking was not
obtained from the petitioner pursuant to existing rules, therefore, same
cannot be used against the petitioner.
7. The petitioner is Class-III employee; the order of recovery was never
served upon the petitioner and the petitioner has already got retired
from the services, therefore, it would very iniquitous on the part of the
petitioner to refund the said amount.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Rafiq Masih (supra), while
dealing with the issue of recovery of excess payment from employees,
has held in paragraph 18 as under:
"18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of
hardship, which would govern employees on the
issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly
been made by the employer, in excess of their
entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the
decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a
ready reference, summarise the following few
situations, wherein recoveries by the employers,
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."
9. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts and the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, decision of recovery, if any, taken
by respondent No. 6 is hereby quashed. The recovered amount of
Rs.,2,20,000/- shall be refunded to the petitioner with interest @ 7%
per annum from date of recovery till its realization. The outstanding
amount shall not be recovered from the petitioner.
10. In the result, the petition is allowed.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
vatti
