Balwant Singh Thakur vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2026 Latest Caselaw 799 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Balwant Singh Thakur vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 March, 2026

                                 1




                                                2026:CGHC:13402
                                                          NAFR

       HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                      WPS No. 782 of 2021
 Balwant Singh Thakur S/o Shri Arjun Singh Thakur, Aged About
  47 Years Working As Driver, Pt. Sundarlal Sharma (Open)
  University, Bilaspur, R/o Residential Colony, Pt. Sundarlal Sharma
  (Open) University, Birkona, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.,
  District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
                                                   ... Petitioner(s)

                             versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Higher
   Education, Block- 3, Third Floor, Indravati Bhavan, Nava Raipur,
   Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
   Chhattisgarh

2. Vice Chancellor, Pt. Sundarlal Sharma (Open) University, Birkona,
   District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

3. Registrar, Pt. Sundarlal Sharma (Open) University, Birkona,
   District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

4. Finance Officer, Pt. Sundarlal Sharma (Open) University, Birkona,
   District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
                                                   ... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner : Ms. Poonam Gilurkar, Advocate on behalf of Mr. D.L. Dewangan, Advocate For State : Ms. Saumya Sharma, P.L. For Respondents : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate No. 2 to 4

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board

20.3.2026

1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:-

10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record pertaining to the case of the petitioner.

10.2 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ, and the dated 15/01/2021 quash/set-aside communication (Annexure-P/1) issued by Respondent no. 3 by which recovery of an amount of INR 1,55,340/ has been made against the petitioner.

10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost of the petition.

2) Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is holding

the post of Driver under respondent-University.She further submits

that initially, petitioner was appointed as daily-rated employee vide

order dated 10.10.2009 and his services were regularized vide

order dated 8.8.2013 and pay-scale of Rs.5,680+Rs.1,900/- was

granted w.e.f. 11.10.2011. She contends that on 15.1.2021,

respondent-University has taken decision to recover the excess

payment of Rs.1,55,340/- on the ground that petitioner's salary

was fixed at higher scale. She further contends that petitioner is a

class-IV employee and after eight years, mistake has been

detected by the respondent-University and thereafter, order of

recovery has been Issued. She argues that issue involved in

present case is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab v. Rafiq

Masih (White Washer) and others1.

3) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respective

respondents submit that due to mistake, excess payment has

been made to the petitioner from 1.9.2012 till 12.10.2012 and from

13.10.2012 till 31.12.2018 and when this mistake came into

knowledge of the University in an audit, order of recovery was

issued. They further submit there is no infirmity in the order

impugned and this petition deserves to be dismissed.

4) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents

placed on record.

5) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra)

observed that:-

10. In State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (Supra) this Court held that while 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

1. (2015) 4 SCC 334

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.

11. The principle enunciated in Proposition (ii) above cannot apply to a situation such as in the present case. In the present case, the officer to whom the payment was made in the first instance was clearly placed on notice that any payment found to have been made in excess would be required to be refunded. The officer furnished an undertaking while opting for the revised pay scale. He is bound by the undertaking.

6) Admittedly, petitioner is a class-IV employee and there was no

misrepresentation on the part of petitioner. Further, the order of

recovery has been issued after a period of eight years.

7) Taking into consideration the facts of the present case and the law

laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra),

order of recovery dated 15.01.2021 is hereby set-aside.

8) Accordingly, this petition stands allowed.

Sd/-

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya