Disposed¶9

Akshay Kumar Pradhan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC23 Jul 2025WPS/1333/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Recovery of excess payment; retired employee; superannuation 30.06.2022; wrong fixation of pay 2011; excess payment 28.09.1998 to 30.06.2022; Rs. 3,12,075/-; no show-cause notice; undertaking to refund excess payment; double increment; Pension Rules 1970; Class II post; Lecturer Higher Secondary School; Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334; Thomas Daniel (2022 SCC OnLine SC 536); Syed Abdul Qadir (2009) 3 SCC 475; Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Educational and Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and Promotion Rules 2019; retiral dues; WPS No. 1333 of 2023; High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur; Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.; recovery order set aside; writ petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Order of recovery dated 12.01.2023 (Annexure P/1) set aside; writ petition disposed of with the aforementioned observation and direction.

Akshay Kumar Pradhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Order of recovery dated 12.01.2023 (Annexure P/1) set aside; writ petition disposed of with the aforementioned observation and direction.

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether the recovery of Rs. 3,12,075/- towards excess pay (paid from 28.09.1998 to 30.06.2022 due to wrong fixation of pay effected by the department in 2011, with no misrepresentation, fraud or suppression attributable to the petitioner) from the petitioner, who retired on superannuation on 30.06.2022, is permissible in law. +1 more

¶2

Court's answer

Applying the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih and Thomas Daniel, recovery of the excess payment from the petitioner, who is a retired employee having already superannuated on 30.06.2022, would be harsh upon him; consequently, the order of recovery dated 12.01.2023 (Annexure P/1) is set aside.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

There is no pleading in the respondents' reply that the petitioner misrepresented or suppressed any material fact or that the wrong fixation of pay was on account of any fraud committed by him; the excess payment flowed from the department's own wrong fixation of pay, so the preconditions for permissible recovery identified in the cited precedents are absent.

¶6

Key takeaways

It is undisputed that the excess payment made to the petitioner was on account of wrong fixation of pay made by the respondent department in the year 2011.ratio¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service law — recovery of excess payment from retired employee. Petitioner, who served as Upper Division Teacher and later Lecturer, Higher Secondary School (a Class II post under the Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Educational and Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2019), superannuated on 30.06.2022. Shortly thereafter he was served with a recovery direction dated 12.01.2023 (Annexure P/1) by the Principal, Government Girls Higher Secondary School Pithora, demanding Rs. 3,12,075/- as excess pay paid from 28.09.1998 to 30.06.2022, without any show-cause notice. The Court found it undisputed that the excess payment resulted from wrong fixation of pay by the respondent department in 2011 and that no misrepresentation, suppression of material fact or fraud was pleaded against the petitioner. Applying State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334 and Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala (2022 SCC OnLine SC 536), and relying on Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar (2009) 3 SCC 475, the Court held that recovery from a retired employee would be harsh; the recovery order dated 12.01.2023 was set aside and the writ petition was disposed of (Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J., 24/07/2025).

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT

¶3

2025:CGHC:35935

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 1333 of 2023

¶7

1 - Akshay Kumar Pradhan S/o Sadan Pradhan Aged About 63 Years R/o Village Sadan Pradhan,, R/o Village Kishanpur Tahsil Pithora, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, School Education Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instruction 1st Floor, Block-C, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3 - Divisional Joint Director Treasury, Account And Pension Department, Raipur Division District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶13

4 - Additional Director Treasury, Account And Pension Department, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶14

5 - District Education Officer Mahasamund District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.

¶15

6 - Government Girls Higher Secondary School Pithora Through Its Principal, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh

¶16

... Respondent(s)

¶17

¶18

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. NavodaySingh, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)/ State	: Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Dy. G.A.

¶19

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶20

Order on Board

¶21

24/07/2025

¶22

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

¶23

“10.1) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned recovery/direction dated 12.01.2023 issued by the respondent, Principal, Government Girls Higher Secondary School Pithora District Mahasamund (Annexure P/1).

¶24

10.2) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned objection Dated 21.11.2022 issued by the Assistant Director, Treasury Account & Pension Raipur (Annexure P/2)

¶25

10.3) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.”

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Upper Division Teacher and subsequently, Lecturer, Higher Secondar School and he retired from the post of Lecturer, Higher Secondary School after attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2022. He

¶27

¶28

contended that just few days before the retirement of the petitioner, respondents have issued a letter of recovery dated 12.01.2023 (Annexure P/1) for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,12,075/-. He submits that before passing of the impugned order of recovery of huge amount, no show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner.

¶29

He also contended that upon verification of the reason for recovery, it was informed to him that excess payment was made from 28.09.1998 to 30.06.2022 in the account of the petitioner. The reason which is orally assigned for passing of an order of recovery of more than 3 lakh rupees is prima facie is due to mistake committed by the other employee of the respondent department. There is no mention or allegation against the petitioner of misrepresentation or suppression of any material fact at the time of fixation of pay. Hence, no recovery can be made from the retiral dues of the petitioner. He contended that the issue with regard to recovery of the excess payment made to the retired employees in particular, who are due to retire within ine year of the order of recovery. Employees has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Ors. (2015) 4 SCC 334 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the recovery of excess payment made to the retired employees to

¶30

¶31

be impermissible. He also contended that following the decision in the case of Rafiq Masih (Supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Thomas Daniel Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. (2022 SCC OnLine SC 536) has also allowed the Appeal filed by the appellant therein.

¶32

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents/State submits that the respondents have filed the reply to the writ petition, specific ground is taken that the petitioner has submitted an undertaking for returning back the amount of excess payment, if paid to him. He further submits that since the petitioner is not entitled for the double increment. Hence, there is no error in the order passed by the Respondents No. 3 & 6. He submits that the Pension Rules, 1970 allows the recovery of excess payment made to the employee. Hence, there is no error in the impugned order of recovery.

¶33

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶34

It is undisputed that the excess payment made to the petitioner is on account of wrong fixation of pay made by the respondent department in the year 2011. In the reply submitted by respondent, there is no pleading that the petitioner in any manner had misrepresented or has suppressed the material fact or wrong fixation of pay is on account of any fraud committed by him. It is

¶35

¶36

also not in dispute that the petitioner stood retired from the post of Lecturer, Higher Secondary School which is a Class II post in set-up under Chhattisgarh School Education Services (Educational and Administrative Cadre) Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2019 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the Rules, 2019). Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (Supra) has observed thus:-

¶37

“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:

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

(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.

¶41

(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a

¶42

¶43

higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.

¶44

(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. ”

¶45

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Abdul Qadir and

¶46

Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (2009) 3 SCC 475 considering the issued with regard to recovery of excess payment made to the petitioner therein has held as under:

¶47

“57. This Court, in a catena of decisions, has granted relief against recovery of excess payment of emoluments/allowances if (A) the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee, and (b) if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous.

¶48

59 . Undoubtedly, the excess amount that has been paid to the appellants - teachers was not because of

¶49

¶50

any misrepresentation or fraud on their part and the appellants also had no knowledge that the amount that was being paid to them was more than what they were entitled to. It would not be out of place to mention here that the Finance Department had, in its counter affidavit, admitted that it was a bona fide mistake on their part. The excess payment made was the result of wrong interpretation of the rule that was applicable to them, for which the appellants cannot be held responsible. Rather, the whole confusion was because of inaction, negligence and carelessness of the officials concerned of the Government of Bihar. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-teachers submitted that majority of the beneficiaries have either retired or are on the verge of it. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case at hand and to avoid any hardship to the appellants-teachers, we are of the view that no recovery of the amount that has been paid in excess to the appellants-teachers should be made. ”

¶51

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in particular, the fact that the order of recovery has been issued on 12.01.2023

¶52

¶53

(Annexure P/1) and thereafter, the petitioner has retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation (i.e. 62 years) on 30.06.2022, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (Supra) and Thomas Daniel (Supra) , permitting the recovery of the excess payment from the petitioner who is a retired employee will be harsh upon him and, therefore, the order of recovery dated 12.01.2023 (Annexure P/1) is set-

¶54

aside.

¶55