[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Abhash Kumar Shrivastava vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 30 March, 2026

                                                   1/7




                                                                      2026:CGHC:14837


                                                                                     NAFR

                          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR



                                         WPS No. 2409 of 2025


             Abhash Kumar Shrivastava S/o Late Rajendra Prasad Shrivastava Aged
             About 64 Years (Retired Assistant Grade-2 Mandi Ambikapur) Resident Of
             House No. 129/1, Masjidpara, Gayatri Ward No.-3, Sitapur, District : Surguja
             (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
                                                                        ... Petitioner(s)


                                                 versus


             1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Agriculture,
             Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, Naya, Naya Raipur,
             P.O./p.S. Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh


             2 - Chhattisgarh State Agriculture Marketing (Mandi) Board Through The
             Managing Director, Beej Bhavan, G. E. Road, Telibandha, Atal Nagar, Naya
             Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh


             3 - Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Through The Secretary, Office Of Krishi Upaj
             Mandi Samiti, Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh


             4 - Chhattisgarh State Agricultural Marketing Board Through The Joint
             Secretary, Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
                                                                           ... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner : Mr. Ritesh Verma, Advocate Digitally signed by For Resp. No.1 : Mr. Love Sharma, Panel Lawyer PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date:

2026.04.01 19:04:48 +0530

For Resp. No.2 to 4 : Mr. Navoday Singh, Advocate

S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 30/03/2026

1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, this

case is heard finally.

2. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:-

" 10.1 that, the Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to quash the recovery Order No./Mandi/Acc./Family Pension/2024-25/579 Ambikapur, dated 15.1.2025 issued by the respondent No. 3, Secretary Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Ambikapur, Surguja (C.G.) (Ann. P/1) at an earliest.

10:2. that, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ or direction to the respondents to pass an order/direction to the respondents to pay the amount already recovered Rs. 1, 26, 229/- from the petitioner at the rate of interest of 12% per annum.

10.3. that, the respondents may kindly be directed that they should not penalize the petitioner for their own fault and they may be directed to compensate the petitioner for his faulty order of recovery. The Hon'ble Court may kindly pass any order or issue any suitable writ or direction as may deem fit under the circumstances of the case.."

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner while

working on the post of Assistant Grade-II in respondent - Krishi Upaj

Mandi Samiti Ambikapur, stood retired from service after attaining

age of superannuation on 30.06.2022. At the time of his retirement

petitioner was paid retrial dues including amount of Rs.3,13,296/-

towards leave encashment of 240 days. Petitioner was served with

letter/ notice dated 15.01.2025 asking for recovery of sum of

Rs.1,76,229/- on the ground that petitioner has been paid excess

amount towards leave encashment. Recovery is sought after about

more than 2 and ½ years from date of retirement and therefore

recovery of excess amount from petitioner who is a Class-III

Employee is not permissible in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme

Court in case of State of Punjab & ors vs. Rafiq Masih (White

Washer) & ors, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 4

would vehemently oppose submission of learned counsel for the

petitioner and would submit that it is not the payment made in part

during period of time but a lump sum amount has been paid to

petitioner in excess while making payment of retiral dues. However,

he does not dispute the submission of learned counsel for the

petitioner that recovery is sought from petitioner after more than 2

and ½ years from the date of retirement.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the

documents annexed along with writ petition.

6. Recovery which is made from petitioner is in respect of excess

payment made towards leave encahsment. It is not the case of

respondent that excess payment is made to petitioner due to

misrepresentation or suppression of fact or any fraud played by

petitioner with respondent.

7. 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 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 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."

8. In case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others vs.

Jagdev Singh, reported in (2016) 14 SCC 267, 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 WA

No.264/2020 (State of CG vs Labha Ram Dhruv) 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. The petitioner is a retired Class- III employee who has already

concluded his service career and is now dependent on his retiral

benefits for his old aged retired life. After receiving the retiral dues, the

petitioner would have reasonably planned his post-retirement life by

making necessary investments, allocating funds for daily expenses,

medical needs, and other essential requirements. These financial

decisions are typically made with the legitimate expectation that the

amounts received are final and not subject to subsequent recovery.

Therefore, it will be very harsh if the recovery is permitted to be made

from the petitioner.

10. In the case at hand, it is not the case of respondents that

petitioner had received excess payment by practicing fraud or by

making misrepresentation. Thus, petitioner cannot be 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. Letter/notice Annexure P-1

dated 15.01.2025 is quashed. Respondents are directed to refund the

amount so recovered, to petitioner within a period of four months from

the date of receipt of copy of order, failing which recovered amount

shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of order till its

realization.