Najma Rahim vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2026 Latest Caselaw 32 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Najma Rahim vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 February, 2026

Author: Parth Prateem Sahu

Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu

                                                  1/6




                                                                   2026:CGHC:9878
                                                                                     NAFR
PAWAN
KUMAR
JHA              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally
signed by
PAWAN
KUMAR JHA                            WPS No. 7145 of 2025
        •   Najma Rahim W/o S.A. Rahim Aged About 62 Years R/o 18/a, Rua Bandha
            Sector, Bhilai, P.S- Sector 6, Tehsil-Durg, District-Durg (C.G.) Post- Retired
            (Head Teacher) Government Primary School Maroda, District- Durg (C.G)
                                                                              ... Petitioner
                                                 versus
        1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School
           Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District
           - Raipur (C.G.)
        2. The Director Directorate Of Public Instructions(DPI) Naya Raipur, District
           Raipur (C.G.)
        3. The District Education Officer District- Durg (C.G.)
        4. The Block Education Officer Durg, Block, District -Durg (C.G.)
        5. Divisional Joint Director Treasury Accounts And Pension, Division Durg,
           District Durg (C.G.)
                                                                                ... Respondents

            For Petitioners                  :     Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocate
            For Respondent-State             :     Mr. Virendra Verma, Panel Lawyer
                              Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

                                      ORDER ON BOARD
   25/02/2026

1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition against the order of recovery dated

29.01.2025 stating that respondents have issued letter for recovery of

amount paid in excess to petitioner threatening therein that if the amount is

not paid within specified period therein the said amount will be deducted from

retiral dues of petitioner and pursuant thereto in afraid of withholding of entire

retiral dues petitioner has deposited Rs. 3,54,686, which was under duress

and sought following reliefs.

"10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order, set aside or direction quashing the impugned order dated 29.01.2025 (Annexure P-4) passed by Divisional Joint Director, Treasury Accounts and Pension, Durg, C.G. in the interest of justice.

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order, set aside or directing the respondent to disburse the amount of Rs. 3,54,868 (Rupees Three Lakhs Fifty Four Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty Eight Only) with interest to the petitioner in the interest of justice.

10.3 That, any other relief which court may deem fit in the interest of equity justice and good conscience."

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the letter dated 29.01.2025 is

issued to petitioner just before two days of attaining age of superannuation

mentioning that petitioner has been paid excess amount of salary by giving

second time pay scale twice mistakenly and the excess payment paid was

Rs. 7,20,817. It is contention of learned counsel for petitioner that when

calculation with regard to the amount as proposed to be recovered as sought

from petitioner of Rs. 7,20,817, it was not provided but in the letter of

recovery it is mentioned that if the excess amount is not paid, then entire

retiral dues of petitioner will be withheld. It is contention of learned counsel

for petitioner that petitioner being Class-III employee even if any amount is

paid in excess towards salary, recovery of the same is not permissible from

the petitioner in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

State of Punjab & ors vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & ors, reported in

(2015) 4 SCC 334. It is also contention of learned counsel for petitioner that

even if consent is given by the employee for recovery of the amount as

mentioned in the recovery letter then also in the light of decision in the case

of State of CG vs. Labha Ram Dhruv passed in Writ Appeal No.264/2020,

excess payment cannot be recovered from the employee if the amount

released in his/ her favour is not on account of any misrepresentation or any

fraud played by petitioner to the respondent-department.

3. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned

counsel for petitioner and submits that while evaluating the service record for

calculating dues of petitioner it revealed that petitioner was paid second time

pay scale twice and thereby excess payment is made to the petitioner.

Respondent No. 4, Block Education Officer issued a letter to the petitioner for

depositing of excess payment made, and petitioner realizing that she has

been paid excess amount has submitted consent letter for depositing the

excess amount received by her and therefore petitioner cannot take shelter

of decision of Rafiq Masih (supra). He contended that the case of

respondent is covered by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of

Punjab and Haryana and others vs. Jagdev Singh, reported in (2016) 14

SCC 267, Chandi Prasad Uniyal vs. State of Uttrakhand and others

reported in (2012) 8 SCC 417.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents

enclosed along with writ petition.

5. From the arguments which is advanced by learned counsel for the respective

parties it is not in dispute that petitioner was holding the post of Assistant

Teacher which is Class-III post, she was paid excess payment by giving

benefit of second time pay scale twice wrongly for the period from

01.08.2012 to 09.0.2017. It is not the case of respondents that excess

payment is made to petitioner due to misrepresentation or suppression of

fact or any fraud played by petitioner with respondent-department.

6. In case of Rafiq Masih (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court considering the

issue of recovery of amount paid in excess has summarized the situations

where in certain cases, even recovery from the Class-III and Class-IV

employee by the employer would not be permissible in law. In Para-18 it was

observed thus:-

"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 hereinabove, 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.

7. So far submission of learned counsel for the State that petitioner has given

undertaking/ consent for refund of the excess amount paid to her on account

of giving benefit of second time pay scale twice. Though undertaking is given

by the petitioner vide Annexure P-5, for depositing of excess amount paid to

her erroneously, then also it will not be a ground for respondent-department

to recover the amount when Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rafiq Masih

(supra) in categorical terms has held that recovery of excess amount from

Class-III and Class-IV employee is impermissible in law. From documents, it

appears that petitioner under fear of withholding of entire retiral dues gave

undertaking.

8. Further, in case of High Court of Jagdev Singh (supra), Hon'ble Supreme

Court though had considered the issue with regard to the undertaking,

however, Para-10 (i) of the decision in case of Rafiq Masih (supra) has not

been overruled or interfered. This aspect is also considered by the Division

Bench of this Court in Labha Ram Dhruv (supra) wherein it was observed

thus:

"9. In the case at hand, the Revision of Pay Rules, 2009 and 2017 do not make any enabling provision reserving option for the employer to seek refund of the amount paid in excess, by making the employee to furnish an undertaking. Even if we conclude, for the sake of arguments, that even in the absence of enabling provision under the Rules, undertaking given by the employee would operate, the fact remains that against the classes of employees against whom recovery would be impermissible in law, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (Supra), recovery from the employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service) would still be impermissible in law. Meaning thereby that even when undertaking is submitted by the employee, but he otherwise belongs to Class-III and Class-IV service, and the amount has been paid more than 5 years back, the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (Supra) would still hold the field in favour of such employees, because the judgment in the matter of Rafiq Masih (Supra) has not been overruled, but only clarified, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its later judgment in the matter of Jagdev Singh, Supra"

9. From perusal of the above, it is clear that the recovery from the employees

belonging to Class-III and Class-IV category (or Group 'C' and Group 'D'

service) is held to be impermissible in law. Meaning thereby that even if

undertaking is submitted by the employee, but he/she otherwise belongs to

Class-III or Class-IV service, recovery of excess amount from him/her is

impermissible and that too after retirement from the service.

10. In the case at hand, admittedly, petitioner was holding a post of Class-III in

the School Education Department. It is also not the case of respondents that

petitioner had received excess payment by practicing fraud or by making

misrepresentation. Thus, petitioner could not have been compelled to return

the amount which has been paid by the respondents on their own without

any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of petitioner.

11. In light of above decisions and in the given facts and circumstances of the

case, in the considered opinion of this Court, the respondents cannot be

permitted to effect recovery from the petitioner of the amount paid in excess

and being so, recovery against petitioner is not sustainable.

12. Consequently, writ petition is allowed and the impugned recovery order

Annexure P-4 dated 29.01.2025, as it relates to recovery of amount of Rs.

7,20,817, is hereby quashed. Respondents are directed to return back the

amount, if any, recovered from petitioner towards recovery of excess

payment, within a further period of 04 months from the date of receipt of

order passed by this Court, failing which the recovered amount shall carry

interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of order passed by this Court till its

realization.

Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/-

                                                            (Parth Prateem Sahu)
pwn                                                                   JUDGE