Allowed¶48

Manharan Lal Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Recovery of excess payment – Retired Class-III employee

Chhattisgarh HC20 Apr 2025WPS/1306/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; WPS No. 1306 of 2024; decided 21.04.2025 by Bibhu Datta Guru, J.; Manharan Lal Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh; recovery of excess payment; retired Class-III employee; sexagenarian; State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334; Jogeshwar Sahoo v. District Judge Cuttack SLP (C) No. 5918/2024 (04.04.2025); quashing of recovery proceedings; refund within six weeks; pension and gratuity; Janpad Panchayat Masturi; Panchayat and Social Welfare Department.

What did the court decide?

Impugned recovery proceedings quashed; refund of any recovered amount to the petitioner within six weeks; respondent authorities to consider pension and gratuity and decide in accordance with law. ¶48

Manharan Lal Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned recovery proceedings quashed; refund of any recovered amount to the petitioner within six weeks; respondent authorities to consider pension and gratuity and decide in accordance with law.

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether the recovery of Rs. 4,91,015/- from the petitioner, a retired Class-III employee, on the ground of excess payment is permissible in law in view of the Supreme Court's guidelines in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih. +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

Applying the principles in Rafiq Masih, recovery from a Class-III employee on the ground of excess payment of salary is not permissible, and the petitioner had made no fraud to receive the excess salary.

¶42

Ratio / Principle

The impugned recovery proceedings taken against the petitioner are quashed, and if any amount has been recovered it is to be returned to the petitioner within six weeks of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶43

Key takeaways

The respondent authorities are directed to consider the petitioner's pension and gratuity and take a decision in accordance with law.ratio¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Recovery of excess payment — Retired Class-III employee — Writ petition by a retired Assistant Internal Account Examiner and Taxation Officer, Janpad Panchayat Masturi, challenging recovery of Rs. 4,91,015/- on the ground of excess payment, the amount having already been recovered from his salary immediately before retirement. Relying on the Supreme Court's guidelines in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334, and the recent reaffirmation in Jogeshwar Sahoo v. District Judge, Cuttack (SLP (C) No. 5918/2024, decided 04.04.2025), the Court held that recovery from a Class-III employee who made no fraud is impermissible, quashed the impugned recovery proceedings, directed refund of any recovered amount within six weeks, and directed the authorities to consider pension and gratuity in accordance with law. Writ petition allowed to the extent indicated. (Bibhu Datta Guru, J.)

¶1

1 / 5

¶2

2025:CGHC:17967

¶3

Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.04.23 10:27:00 +0530

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

NAFR

¶6

WPS No. 1306 of 2024

¶7

1 Manharan Lal Sahu S/o Late Shri Puran Lal Sahu Aged About 63 Years Occupation- Retired Assistant Internal Account Examiner And Taxation Officer Under The Office Of Janpad Panchayat Masturi, Permenant Address R/o Vill. Loharshi (Son), Tah. Masturi, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat And Social Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Mantralaya, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 The Director Directorate Of Panchayat And Social Welfare Department, Indrawti Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Mantralaya, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 The Collector Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

4 The Joint Director Panchayat And Social Welfare Department Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

5 The Chief Executive Officer Jila Panchayat Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶15

2 / 5

¶16

6 The Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat Masturi, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶17

7 The Joint Director Treasury, Account And Pension Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶18

... Respondent(s)

¶19

(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)

¶20

For Petitioner	: Ms. Shrijita Kesharwani on behalf of Shri Prakash Tiwari, Advocate
For Respondents/ State	: Ms. Nupur Trivedi, P.L.
For Respondent No. 6	: Mr. Anirudhha Shrivastava on behalf of Shri S.S. Baghel, Advocate

¶21

(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU)

¶22

Order on Board

¶23

21.04.2025

¶24

By the present writ petition, the petitioner, who is retired from the post of Assistant Internal Account Examiner and Taxation Officer is questioning the recovery order amounting to Rs.4,91,015/stating that excess payment was made to the petitioner.

¶25

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a sexagenarian and retired Class-III employee and the recovery which has been made by the respondent authorities is contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab V/s Rafiq Masih & Ors. reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that when the excess payment was come to the knowledge of the respondent authorities, the recovery order has been passed and the amount

¶27

3 / 5

¶28

has already been recovered and there is no illegality in the recovery which has been made from the salary of the petitioner immediately before retirement.

¶29

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents and the pleadings made by the petitioner as well as the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of

¶30

Rafiq Masih (supra).

¶31

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra) has issued guidelines which reads as under :-

¶32

“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:

¶33

(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service).

¶34

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

¶35

(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.

¶36

(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.

¶37

(v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the

¶38

4 / 5

¶39

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.

¶40

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.”

¶41

It is not in dispute that the petitioner was holding Class-III post and the recovery of the amount as stated above has been made by the respondent authorities on the ground that excess payment has wrongly been made to the petitioner.

¶42

The principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra) is that the recovery from the ClassIII employee is not permissible stating excess payment of salary. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has not made any fraud to receive the excess salary. The same view has also been reiterated by the Supreme Court recently in the matter of Jogeshwar Sahoo & Ors. v. The District Judge, Cuttack & Others (decided in SLP (C) No. 5918/2024 on 04/04/2025).

¶43

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court, the impugned recovery proceedings taken against the petitioner are hereby quashed and if any amount is recovered the same be

¶44

5 / 5

¶45

returned to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the

¶46

date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶47

As far as, the pension and gratuity is concerned, the respondent authorities are directed to consider the same and take decision in accordance with law.

¶48

Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶49

Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE

¶50

Jyoti

Manharan Lal Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manharan Lal Sahu v. 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

Smt. Seeta Devi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Yogesh Nayak Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shyam Singh Khanna Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shanti Hota Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gulab Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ratan Das Vs State of Chhattisgarh