Allowed¶50

Anjani Singh v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC15 Jul 2025WPS/124/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WPS No. 124 of 2023; High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur; decided 16/07/2025; neutral citation 2025:CGHC:33507. Keywords: recovery of excess salary; excess payment August 2002 to November 2019; Rs. 1,00,868; Platoon Commander, 17th Battalion, Chhattisgarh Armed Force; Commandant's recovery order 01.12.2022 quashed; no opportunity of hearing; natural justice; no fraud or misrepresentation; State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334; Class-III/Class-IV employees; recovery impermissible; Ram Krishna Sahu WPS No.4290/2013 followed; writ of mandamus; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 01.12.2022 (Annexure P/1) directing recovery of Rs. 1,00,868/- quashed so far as it relates to the petitioner; no order as to costs. ¶50

Anjani Singh Vs the State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 01.12.2022 (Annexure P/1) directing recovery of Rs. 1,00,868/- quashed so far as it relates to the petitioner; no order as to costs.

¶50

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 01.12.2022 issued by Respondent No. 5 directing recovery of excess payment of Rs. 1,00,868/- from the petitioner's salary is liable to be quashed, having been passed without notice or opportunity of hearing. +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

The recovery order dated 01.12.2022 was passed without affording the petitioner any opportunity of hearing, which is in violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

There is no allegation that the petitioner played any fraud or misrepresentation in obtaining the excess payment; accordingly, his case falls within the situations in which recovery by the employer is impermissible in law, as summarised in Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334 and applied by this Court in Ram Krishna Sahu, WPS No.4290/2013 (paras 7 to 10).

¶34

Key takeaways

In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 01.12.2022 (Annexure P/1) is quashed so far as it relates to the present petitioner; no order as to cost(s).ratio¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Recovery of excess pay — Order dated 01.12.2022 by Commandant, 17th Special (I/r) Battalion, C.A.F., directing recovery of Rs. 1,00,868/- towards excess payment made from August, 2002 to November, 2019 — Passed without notice or opportunity of hearing — Violative of principles of natural justice — No allegation of fraud or misrepresentation against the petitioner — Recovery from a Class-III employee where payment was mistakenly made, spread over a period exceeding five years, impermissible per State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others, (2015) 4 SCC 334, and Ram Krishna Sahu vs State of Chhattisgarh, WPS No.4290/2013 (decided 04.01.2016), paras 7 to 10 — Writ petition allowed, impugned recovery order quashed, no costs (Single Judge, Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J., 16/07/2025).

¶1

¶2

2025:CGHC:33507

¶3

Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 124 of 2023

¶7

1 - Anjani Singh S/o Parsuram Singh Aged About 59 Years Presently Working As Platoon Commander In The 17th Battalion, Chhattisgarh Armed Force, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham (C.G.).

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Home Department (Police), Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.).

¶11

2 - The Director General Of Police Police Head Quarter, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.).

¶12

3 - The Additional Director General Of Police Chhattisgarh Armed Force, Police Head Quarter, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.).

¶13

4 - The Inspector General Of Police Chhattisgarh Armed Force, Police Head Quarter, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.).

¶14

¶15

5 - The Commandant 17th Special (I/r) Battalion, Chhattisgarh Armed Force, Kabirdham, District Kabirdham (C.G.).

¶16

... Respondent(s)

¶17

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aman Upadhyay, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/ State : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Panel Lawyer.

¶18

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶19

Order on Board

¶20

16/07/2025

¶21

By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-

¶22

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for

¶23

entire records pertaining to the case of petitioner.

¶24

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in nature of mandamus where to set aside/quash the impugned order dated 01.12.2022 issued by the Respondent No. 5.

¶25

10.3 That, any other relief or reliefs may also be granted to the petitioner which this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶26

The petitioner in the writ petition challenging the legality, validity and the correctness of the order dated 01.12.2022 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No. 5 whereby the excess

¶27

¶28

amount paid from August, 2002 to November, 2019 to the petitioner has been directed to be recovered amounting to Rs. 1,00,868/-.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as Constable (G.D.) on 24.10.1985 under the 12th Battalion, Darri, District Korba. In 1992, the 12^th Battalion was shifted from Darri, District Korba to Sakari, District Bilaspur. After the formation of the State of Chhattisgarh, the 12^th Battalion at Sakari was renamed as the 2^nd Battalion, Sakari, District Bilaspur. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Head Constable (G.D.) in 2002 and posted in the 2^nd Battalion, Sakari, Bilaspur (C.G.). Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Platoon Commander in 2012 and continued in the 2^nd Battalion, Sakari. Subsequently, in 2021, he was promoted to the post of Platoon Commander and transferred from the 2^nd Battalion, Sakari, District Bilaspur to the 17^th Battalion, Kabirdham, where he is presently serving as Platoon Commander. The petitioner has now received the impugned order whereby the Respondent Commandant has directed recovery of Rs. 1,00,868/- from his salary on account of alleged excess payment and without giving any opportunity of hearing and without any notice to the petitioner, the impugned order has been issued, which would further to no the violation of principle of

¶30

¶31

natural justice. He submit that fraud misrepresentation has been played by petitioners and if the benefits have wrongly been granted them, the same cannot be recovered and their case is covered by the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 . He would next submit that the similar issue has been considered and decided by this Court on 04.01.2016 in WPS No.4290/2013 in between Ram Krishna Sahu vs State of Chhattisgarh and others and other connected mattes.

¶32

On the other hand, learned State counsel, would support the impugned order.

¶33

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, submissions made considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspection.

¶34

The recovery of excess amount already paid tο the petitioner has been directed against them, but the fact remains that while passing the order (Annexure-P/1), no opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the petitioner which is in violation of principle of natural justice. Even otherwise, there in no allegation against the petitioner that he has played any misrepresentation.

¶35

This Court in paras 7 to 10 of WPS No.4290/2013 has held as under:-

¶36

¶37

"7. In Rafiq Masih's case (supra), Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have considered the entire issue in great detail and it has been held specifically that where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer. certain recoveries have been held to their entitlement. be impermissible in law. Para 18 of the report states as under:-

¶38

"18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery. payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready following reference, summarise few situations. the wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:

¶39

(i) Recovery from employees the belonging to Class III and Class IV service service) (or Group C and Group D Service)

¶40

(ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.

¶41

(iii) Recovery from the employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five

¶42

¶43

years, before the order of recovery issued.

¶44

(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.

¶45

(v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover."

¶46

8. In the above-stated judgment, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that recovery from the employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV services is impermissible in law where the payment has been made mistakenly by the employer entitlement. 9. The fact remains in the present cases that earlier petitioners filed writ petition which was allowed in terms of order in the matter of Ram Kumar Sahu (supra). Thereafter, State Government granted benefit of regular pay scale to the petitioners and it is not the case that the petitioners have fraud or made any played any misrepresentation in order payment of to higher pay

¶47

¶48

scale. are petitioners and their case get The Class-III employees is covered by the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra).

¶49

10. In view of above, the writ petitions are allowed and the order dated 18/09/2013 (Annexure P/2) relating to the present petitioners shall stand quashed. No order as to cost(s)."

¶50

In view of above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 01.12.2022 (Annexure P/1) in the writ petition, so far as it relates to the present petitioner, is hereby quashed. No order as to cost (s).

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶53

Raghu Jat

Anjani Singh v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anjani Singh v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Pitamber Das

Smt. Sugantin Bai Vs Lokesh Das Manikpuri

Smt. Shringarkali Agrawal Vs Jeevrakhan Sahu

Suresh Kumar Rathiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pritam Rathore Vs Director General, Home Guard Fire and Emergency Services

Ku. Upasana Dhruw Vs State of Chhattisgarh