[ad_1]
Chattisgarh High Court
Rameshwar Lal Netam vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 August, 2025
-1-
Digitally signed
by RAMESH 2025:CGHC:43100
KUMAR VATTI
Date:
2025.08.27
15:57:21 +0530 NAFR
HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 3507 of 2021
Rameshwar Lal Netam S/o Banshi Lal Netam Aged About 58 Years Working As Head
Master, Govt. Middle School Basin, District- Balod, 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 Petitioner : None
For State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Deputy Government Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
25.08.2025
1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-
“10.1. That, petitioner most respectfully prays that this
-2-
Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/quash
the impugned recovery order dated 14.06.2021
(ANNEXURE P/1).
10.2 That, petitioner most respectfully prays 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.
10.3. Any other relief or reliefs that may be deemed fit
and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case
may be also kindly be granted.”
2) The petitioner, who is working on the post of Head Master, Government Middle
School, Basin, District Balod (C.G.), has filed this writ petition challenging the
legality and validity of the recovery order dated 14.06.2021 (Annexure P/1)
issued by respondent No.4.
3) It is pleaded that a recovery order to the tune of Rs. 1,37,514/- (Rupees One
Lakh Thirty-Seven Thousand Five Hundred and Fourteen only) has been issued
against the petitioner on account of excess payment made between 01.01.2016
to 30.06.2021. It was detected during verification of account by the office of
Treasury, Accounts and Pension. It is further pleaded that no opportunity of
hearing was given to the petitioner. It is also pleaded that there was no
misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner.
4) The learned State counsel opposes the pleadings and submits that on account of
erroneous fixation of pay, excess payment was made to the petitioner and
during verification, the Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts & Pension, Durg
-3-
Division, District Durg (C.G.) raised objection, pursuant to which order of
recovery against the petitioner has been issued.
5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on
record.
6) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq
Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334, 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
-4-extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of
the employer’s right to recover. ”
7) In the present case, the petitioner was a Head Master, which is Class-III post, and
the impugned recovery order has been issued on account of wrong fixation of
pay and excess payment made. The petitioner was never at fault, nor was he a
party to the process of fixation. The recovery is being made after more than five
years of such payment. Therefore, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered
by clauses (i) and (iii) of paragraph 18 of the aforesaid judgment of Rafiq Masih
(supra).
8) 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 order dated
14.06.2021 (Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed.
9) It is directed that if any amount has already been recovered from the petitioner
pursuant to the said order, the same shall be refunded to him forthwith,
preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order.
10) With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
vatti
[ad_2]
Source link