[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Kamalkishor Gangaber vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 March, 2026

                                        1




Digitally signed
by RAMESH
KUMAR VATTI                                              2026:CGHC:13556
Date:
2026.03.25
20:03:19 +0530                                                           NAFR

                   HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                             WPS No. 3557 of 2021


* - Kamalkishor Gangaber S/o Chowa Ram Gangaber Aged About 58 Years
Working As Head Master , Government Primary School Borirkala, District :
Balod, Chhattisgarh
                                                         --- Petitioner
                                    Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of School
Education Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, Raipur, District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - Principal Secretary Department Of Finance Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal
Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3 - District Education Officer District Balod, Chhattisgarh.
4 - Block Education Officer Gurur District Balod Chhattisgarh.
                                                               --- Respondents

And

* - Bal Singh Mandavi S/o. Abhay Ram Mandavi Aged About 46 Years Working As Head Master, Govt. Girls Middle School Sorar, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh

---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District :

Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2 - Principal Secretary Department Of Finance, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Distt, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3 - District Education Officer Distt. Balod, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Block Education Officer Gurur, District Distt. Balod, Chhattisgarh

--- Respondents And

* - Jageshwar Lal Sahu S/o Damarsingh Aged About 57 Years Working As Head Master, Government Middle School Khertha, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh

---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of School Education Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur District :

Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2 - Principal Secretary Department Of Finance Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3 - District Education Officer District Balod, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Block Education Officer Gurur, District Balod, Chhattisgarh.

--- Respondents

For Petitioners : Mr. Naveen Nirala, Advocate

For Respondents/State : Mr. Amandeep Singh, Panel Lawyer

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 20/03/2026

1. The petitioners have filed these petitions seeking the following

relief(s):-

"10.1 That, petitioners most respectfully pray that this Hon'ble

Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/quash the impugned

recovery order(s) dated 14.06.2021 (ANNEXURE P/1).

10.2 That, petitioners most respectfully pray that this Hon'ble

Court may kindly order writ of appropriate nature directing the

respondents to continue the salary as per increased pay

grade, prohibiting recovery and without any deduction.

10.3 Any other relief or reliefs that may be deemed fit proper

in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be kindly

granted."

2. WPS No. 3557 of 2021: The petitioner was working on the post of

Head Master, Government Primary School, Borirkala, District Balod

(C.G.), who has got retired from service on account of superannuation.

An order of recovery to the tune of Rs. 92,410/- (Rupees Ninety Two

Thousand Four Hundred and Ten Only) was issued by respondent No.

4 on 14.06.2021 on account of wrong fixation of pay scale of the

petitioner and it continued for period from 18.04.2007 to 31.12.2016.

The mistake was detected during verification of account by the office of

Treasury, Accounts and Pension after more than 13 years.

WPS No. 3624 of 2021: The petitioner is working on the post of Head

Master, Government Girls Middle School, Sorar, District Balod (C.G.),

who is still in service. An order of recovery to the tune of Rs. 33,704/-

(Rupees Thirty Three Thousand Seven Hundred and Four Only) was

issued by respondent No. 4 on 14.06.2021 on account of wrong

fixation of pay scale of the petitioner and it continued for period from

01.07.2007 to 31.12.2016. The mistake was detected during

verification of account by the office of Treasury, Accounts and Pension

after more than 13 years.

3. WPS No. 3635 of 2021: The petitioner was working on the post of

Head Master, Government Middle School, Khertha, District Balod

(C.G.), who has got retired from service on account of superannuation.

An order of recovery to the tune of Rs. 1,25,181/- (Rupees One Lakh

Twenty Five Thousand One Hundred and Eighty One Only) was issued

by respondent No. 4 on 14.06.2021 on account of wrong fixation of

pay scale of the petitioner and it continued for period from 28.02.2007

to 30.06.2017. The mistake was detected during verification of account

by the office of Treasury, Accounts and Pension after more than 13

years.

4. Mr. Naveen Nirala, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

argued that order of recovery has been passed against government

Class III retired employees (WPS No. 3557/2021 & WPS No.

3635/2021) and the employee who is still in service (WPS No.

3624/2021), and there was no misrepresentation on their part. It is also

contended that the mistake was detected by department after long 13

years and thus, the case of the petitioners 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.

5. The learned State counsel opposes the pleadings and submits that on

account of erroneous fixation of pay, excess payment was made to the

petitioners and during verification, the Joint Director, Treasury,

Accounts & Pension, Durg Division, District Durg (C.G.) raised

objection, pursuant to which order(s) of recovery against the

petitioners has been issued.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents

placed on record.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 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. "

8. In the present case, the petitioners were Head Master, which is Class-

III post, and the impugned recovery orders have been issued on

account of wrong fixation of pay and excess payment made. The

petitioners were never at fault, nor were they party to the process of

fixation. The recovery is being made after more than 13-14 years of

such payment. Therefore, the case of the petitioners is squarely

covered by clauses (i) (ii) and (iii) of paragraph 18 of the aforesaid

judgment of Rafiq Masih (supra).

9. In view of the above discussion and in the light of the law laid down by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (supra), the recovery

orders dated 14.06.2021 (Annexure P/1) are hereby quashed.

10. It is directed that if any amount has already been recovered from the