1 CGHC010231092026 2026:CGHC:31796 NAFR JYOTI SHARMA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.07.2512:40:16 +0530 WPS No. 4783 of 2026 Kailash Gajbhiye S/o Shri Nathu Ji Gajbhiye, Aged About 62 Years Retired Assistant Statistical Officer, R/o- D-F/9 Sanjay Apartment, Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Its Secretary, Department Of Livestock Development, Mantralaya, Mahandi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, (C.G.) 2. The Director Of Veterinary Services, Directorate Of Veterinary Services, Department Of Livestock Development, Ground Floor, Block No. 03, Indravati Bhavan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Director Of Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Directorate Of Treasury And Accounts, Indravati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 4. Joint Director Bilaspur, Office Of Joint Director, Veterinary Services, Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Dy. G.A. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 24/07/2026 1. The petitioner in the instant petition has prayed for the following reliefs:- 2

“10.1 That, the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to issue suitable writ/order/direction and set aside/quash the impugn recovery order/letter dated 29.04.2026 issued by Respondent No.4 (Annexure-P/1) by declaring the same is bad in law and direct the respondent to release the entire gratuity amount of the petitioner without any recovery. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue the appropriate order/direction to the respondents for calculating all the retrial dues according to the last salary of the petitioner and further direct the respondent for paying the 12% P.A. interest to the petitioner for delay payment of the retiral dues of the petitioner. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other suitable, appropriate relief/relief's, which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case along with the cost of the petition.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner retired from service on 30.04.2026 and, thereafter, the respondent authorities issued the impugned order dated 29.04.2026 directing recovery of an amount of Rs.3,27,285/- on the ground that his pay had been wrongly fixed and excess salary had been paid to him. It 3

is submitted that the petitioner had been drawing the said pay and allowances since 23.02.2008 and that the alleged excess payment was not attributable to any misrepresentation, fraud or concealment on his part, but was solely on account of an act of the employer. Learned counsel contends that the impugned recovery is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334, wherein it has been held that recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year from the date of the recovery order, is impermissible and that recovery of excess payment made for a period exceeding five years prior to the issuance of the recovery order is also unsustainable in law. It is argued that, in the present case, the impugned recovery order has been passed after the retirement of the petitioner and the alleged excess payment pertains to a period commencing from 23.02.2008, which is far beyond five years preceding the issuance of the recovery order. It is further submitted that the petitioner was holding the post of Assistant Statistical Officer, a Class-III post, and therefore his case squarely falls within the categories carved out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein such recovery has been held to be impermissible. Learned counsel further submits that no show-cause notice was issued and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passing the impugned pay re-fixation and recovery orders, thereby rendering the same violative 4

of the principles of natural justice. On these grounds, it is submitted that the impugned orders are arbitrary, illegal and liable to be quashed. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that at the time of processing the pension case and retiral benefits of the petitioner, an objection was raised by the office of the Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts and Pension, Bilaspur regarding the pay fixation. Upon examination of the said objection, it was found that the petitioner's pay had been erroneously fixed, resulting in excess payment of salary during the course of service. Consequently, the pay fixation was revised by and, after recalculation, an amount of Rs.3,27,285/- was found recoverable from the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that since the excess payment was made due to erroneous pay fixation, the respondents were justified in directing recovery of the excess amount and, therefore, no illegality has been committed by the authorities in passing the impugned orders. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings as well as the material available on record. 5. The principal issue that arises for consideration in the present case is whether the respondents were justified in revising the pay fixation of the petitioner and directing recovery of an amount of Rs.3,27,285/- after his retirement on the ground of erroneous pay fixation, particularly when the alleged excess payment relates to a 5

period commencing from the year 2008, the petitioner was holding a Class-III post, and there is no allegation of any misrepresentation or fraud on his part. A further issue which requires consideration is whether the impugned orders could have been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and whether the same are sustainable in light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in RafiqMasih(Supra). 6. In Rafiq Masih (Supra), the Supreme 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). or (ii) Recovery from retired employees, employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess paymenthasbeenmadeforaperiodinexcessoffive years,beforetheorderofrecoveryisissued. (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even thoughheshouldhaverightfullybeenrequiredtowork againstaninferiorpost. (v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, 6

would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent,aswouldfaroutweightheequitablebalanceof theemployer'srighttorecover. 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 placedonnoticethatanypaymentfoundtohavebeen madeinexcesswouldberequiredtoberefunded.The officer furnished an undertaking while opting for the revisedpayscale.Heisboundbytheundertaking." 7. From a perusal of the record, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was holding the post of Assitant Statistical Officer, a Class-III post, and had already retired from service. It is also not disputed that the alleged excess payment pertains to the pay fixation granted to the petitioner on 23.02.2008, whereas the impugned recovery order came to be passed only on 29.04.2026. There is no material available on record to indicate that the petitioner had obtained the alleged excess payment by practicing fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of any material fact. The excess payment, if any, appears to have arisen on account of an act attributable to the employer.

8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the case of the petitioner squarely falls within the categories carved out by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334, inasmuch as the petitioner is a retired employee, was holding a Class-III post and the alleged 7 excess payment relates to a period much beyond five years preceding the issuance of the recovery order. Consequently, recovery of the alleged excess amount from the petitioner cannot be sustained in law. 9. Furthermore, the record does not disclose that any show-cause notice was issued or any effective opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner prior to passing the impugned pay re-fixation order and consequential recovery order. The impugned action, therefore, also stands vitiated for non-compliance with the principles of natural justice. 10. At the same time, this Court is not inclined to examine the correctness or otherwise of the pay fixation granted to the petitioner on merits. Merely because recovery of the alleged excess payment is impermissible in view of the law laid down in Rafiq Masih (supra), it would not preclude the respondents from examining the issue of pay fixation in accordance with law. However, any such exercise can be undertaken only after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and passing a reasoned order.

11. Accordingly, the impugned order of recovery dated 29.04.2026 hereby set aside. Liberty is reserved to the respondents to undertake a fresh exercise with regard to pay fixation of the petitioner in accordance with law, after affording him an adequate opportunity of hearing. It is, however, made clear that any 8 recovery of the alleged excess payment already made to the petitioner shall be governed by the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (supra). The respondents shall further ensure release of all remaining admissible retiral dues, if any, payable to the petitioner. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of 50 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Jyoti

1 CGHC010231092026 2026:CGHC:31796 NAFR JYOTI SHARMA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2026.07.2512:40:16 +0530 WPS No. 4783 of 2026 Kailash Gajbhiye S/o Shri Nathu Ji Gajbhiye, Aged About 62 Years Retired Assistant Statistical Officer, R/o- D-F/9 Sanjay Apartment, Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Its Secretary, Department Of Livestock Development, Mantralaya, Mahandi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, (C.G.) 2. The Director Of Veterinary Services, Directorate Of Veterinary Services, Department Of Livestock Development, Ground Floor, Block No. 03, Indravati Bhavan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Director Of Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Directorate Of Treasury And Accounts, Indravati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 4. Joint Director Bilaspur, Office Of Joint Director, Veterinary Services, Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Dy. G.A. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 24/07/2026 1. The petitioner in the instant petition has prayed for the following reliefs:- 2

“10.1 That, the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to issue suitable writ/order/direction and set aside/quash the impugn recovery order/letter dated 29.04.2026 issued by Respondent No.4 (Annexure-P/1) by declaring the same is bad in law and direct the respondent to release the entire gratuity amount of the petitioner without any recovery. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue the appropriate order/direction to the respondents for calculating all the retrial dues according to the last salary of the petitioner and further direct the respondent for paying the 12% P.A. interest to the petitioner for delay payment of the retiral dues of the petitioner. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other suitable, appropriate relief/relief's, which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case along with the cost of the petition.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner retired from service on 30.04.2026 and, thereafter, the respondent authorities issued the impugned order dated 29.04.2026 directing recovery of an amount of Rs.3,27,285/- on the ground that his pay had been wrongly fixed and excess salary had been paid to him. It 3

is submitted that the petitioner had been drawing the said pay and allowances since 23.02.2008 and that the alleged excess payment was not attributable to any misrepresentation, fraud or concealment on his part, but was solely on account of an act of the employer. Learned counsel contends that the impugned recovery is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334, wherein it has been held that recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year from the date of the recovery order, is impermissible and that recovery of excess payment made for a period exceeding five years prior to the issuance of the recovery order is also unsustainable in law. It is argued that, in the present case, the impugned recovery order has been passed after the retirement of the petitioner and the alleged excess payment pertains to a period commencing from 23.02.2008, which is far beyond five years preceding the issuance of the recovery order. It is further submitted that the petitioner was holding the post of Assistant Statistical Officer, a Class-III post, and therefore his case squarely falls within the categories carved out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein such recovery has been held to be impermissible. Learned counsel further submits that no show-cause notice was issued and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passing the impugned pay re-fixation and recovery orders, thereby rendering the same violative 4

of the principles of natural justice. On these grounds, it is submitted that the impugned orders are arbitrary, illegal and liable to be quashed. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that at the time of processing the pension case and retiral benefits of the petitioner, an objection was raised by the office of the Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts and Pension, Bilaspur regarding the pay fixation. Upon examination of the said objection, it was found that the petitioner's pay had been erroneously fixed, resulting in excess payment of salary during the course of service. Consequently, the pay fixation was revised by and, after recalculation, an amount of Rs.3,27,285/- was found recoverable from the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that since the excess payment was made due to erroneous pay fixation, the respondents were justified in directing recovery of the excess amount and, therefore, no illegality has been committed by the authorities in passing the impugned orders. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings as well as the material available on record. 5. The principal issue that arises for consideration in the present case is whether the respondents were justified in revising the pay fixation of the petitioner and directing recovery of an amount of Rs.3,27,285/- after his retirement on the ground of erroneous pay fixation, particularly when the alleged excess payment relates to a 5

period commencing from the year 2008, the petitioner was holding a Class-III post, and there is no allegation of any misrepresentation or fraud on his part. A further issue which requires consideration is whether the impugned orders could have been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and whether the same are sustainable in light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in RafiqMasih(Supra). 6. In Rafiq Masih (Supra), the Supreme 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). or (ii) Recovery from retired employees, employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess paymenthasbeenmadeforaperiodinexcessoffive years,beforetheorderofrecoveryisissued. (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even thoughheshouldhaverightfullybeenrequiredtowork againstaninferiorpost. (v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, 6

would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent,aswouldfaroutweightheequitablebalanceof theemployer'srighttorecover. 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 placedonnoticethatanypaymentfoundtohavebeen madeinexcesswouldberequiredtoberefunded.The officer furnished an undertaking while opting for the revisedpayscale.Heisboundbytheundertaking." 7. From a perusal of the record, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was holding the post of Assitant Statistical Officer, a Class-III post, and had already retired from service. It is also not disputed that the alleged excess payment pertains to the pay fixation granted to the petitioner on 23.02.2008, whereas the impugned recovery order came to be passed only on 29.04.2026. There is no material available on record to indicate that the petitioner had obtained the alleged excess payment by practicing fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of any material fact. The excess payment, if any, appears to have arisen on account of an act attributable to the employer.

8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the case of the petitioner squarely falls within the categories carved out by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334, inasmuch as the petitioner is a retired employee, was holding a Class-III post and the alleged 7 excess payment relates to a period much beyond five years preceding the issuance of the recovery order. Consequently, recovery of the alleged excess amount from the petitioner cannot be sustained in law. 9. Furthermore, the record does not disclose that any show-cause notice was issued or any effective opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner prior to passing the impugned pay re-fixation order and consequential recovery order. The impugned action, therefore, also stands vitiated for non-compliance with the principles of natural justice. 10. At the same time, this Court is not inclined to examine the correctness or otherwise of the pay fixation granted to the petitioner on merits. Merely because recovery of the alleged excess payment is impermissible in view of the law laid down in Rafiq Masih (supra), it would not preclude the respondents from examining the issue of pay fixation in accordance with law. However, any such exercise can be undertaken only after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and passing a reasoned order.

11. Accordingly, the impugned order of recovery dated 29.04.2026 hereby set aside. Liberty is reserved to the respondents to undertake a fresh exercise with regard to pay fixation of the petitioner in accordance with law, after affording him an adequate opportunity of hearing. It is, however, made clear that any 8 recovery of the alleged excess payment already made to the petitioner shall be governed by the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (supra). The respondents shall further ensure release of all remaining admissible retiral dues, if any, payable to the petitioner. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of 50 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Jyoti