Santosh Kumar Dubey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC1 Apr 2025WPS/1362/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: writ petition (WPS) Chhattisgarh High Court; recovery of excess payment; retired employee; Class III / Group C service; Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334; Jagdev Singh (2016) 14 SCC 267; Labha Ram Dhruv Writ Appeal No.264 of 2020; Roshan Lal Baghel Writ Appeal No.265 of 2020; quashing of recovery order dated 04.02.2025; refund within 6 months; Deputy Commissioner Raipur; Superintendent retired 31.05.2019; service 1999 to 2016 on Class III post.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed: impugned recovery order dated 04.02.2025 (Annexure P-1) quashed; respondents directed to refund any amount recovered from the petitioner within 6 months of receipt of the order. ¶¶41

Santosh Kumar Dubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the recovery order dated 04.02.2025 issued by respondent No. 4 (Deputy Commissioner, Raipur), directing recovery of Rs. 4,07,600/- as excess payment from the petitioner, a retired Class-III employee, is permissible in law.

¶¶24

Court's answer

Since the petitioner is undisputedly a retired employee, recovery of the amount from him is not permissible, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (supra).

¶¶39

Ratio / Principle

Considering the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Division Bench of this Court, and the fact that the petitioner rendered services on a Class III post from 1999 to 2016, the impugned recovery order dated 04.02.2025 (Annexure P-1) is quashed.

¶¶40

Key takeaways

Respondents are directed to return back the amount, if any, recovered from the petitioner within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of the order.ratio¶¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court (Bilaspur), single judge (Bibhu Datta Guru), WPS No. 1362 of 2025, order dated 02/04/2025: Recovery of Rs. 4,07,600/- ordered on 04.02.2025 by the Deputy Commissioner, Raipur from a retired Class-III employee (retired as Superintendent, office of Commissioner, Raipur on 31.05.2019) held impermissible in view of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334, under which recovery from retired employees is impermissible; the impugned recovery order (Annexure P-1) was quashed and the respondents were directed to refund any amount recovered within six months; writ petition allowed. Counsel had also invoked High Court of Punjab & Haryana v. Jagdev Singh (2016) 14 SCC 267 and the Division Bench decisions in State of Chhattisgarh v. Labha Ram Dhruv (WA No.264 of 2020) and State of Chhattisgarh v. Roshan Lal Baghel (WA No.265 of 2020).

¶1

1 / 4

¶2

2025:CGHC:15433

¶3

Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.04.04 12:42:49 +0530

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 1362 of 2025

¶7

1 Santosh Kumar Dubey S/o Late M.L. Dubey Aged About 67 Years R/o- Karmchari Colony Kushalpur Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, (C.G.)

¶11

2 Accountant General Zero Point, Balodabazaar Road Raipur DistrictRaipur (C.G.)

¶12

3 Divisional Joint Director Treasury Account And Pension Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶13

4 Deputy Commissioner Raipur- Division, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶14

5 Commissioner Raipur- Division, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶15

6 Collector Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶16

7 Joint Collector Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶17

... Respondent(s)

¶18

(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)

¶19

For Petitioner	: Mr. Basant Dewangan, Advocate
For Respondents/	: Mr. Suyashdhar, Dy. G.A.

¶20

2 / 4

¶21

State For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate

¶22

(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board

¶23

02/04/2025

¶24

By the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking quashment of recovery order dated 04.02.2025 issued by respondent No. 4 i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Raipur.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Grade-III and has retired from his service from the post of Superintendent from the office of Commissioner, Raipur on 31.05.2019. He further submits that vide order dated 04.02.2025 (Annexure P-1) respondent No. 4 issued a recovery order for an amount of Rs. 4,07,600/- against the petitioner stating that excess payment has been paid to the petitioner. He further submits that recovery against Grade-III employee after his retirement is not allowed as stated in case of State of Punjab and others V. Rfiq Masih (White Washer) and others, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 . He also contended that the similar view has been taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others v. Jagdev Singh reported in (2016) 14 SCC 267 and by the Division Bench of this Court in case of State of Chhattisgarh v. Labha Ram Dhruv in Writ Appeal No.264 of 2020 and also in case of State of Chhattisgarh and others v. Roshan Lal Baghel in Writ Appeal No.265 of 2020. He further submits that recovery made by the respondents from the petitioner is

¶26

3 / 4

¶27

erroneous and not permissible and prays that the order of recovery dated 04.02.2025 be set aside.

¶28

Learned State counsel opposes the submission made and submits that the order of recovery is just and proper and need no interference.

¶29

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the documents annexed.

¶30

Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rafiq Masih(supra) has observed thus:

¶31

“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:

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

(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.

¶35

(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.

¶36

(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.

¶37

4 / 4

¶38

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.”

¶39

In the aforementioned facts of the case, where undisputedly petitioner is retired employee, recovery of the amount from petitioner is not permissible as observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rafiq Masih(supra).

¶40

Considering the decision of the Hon’ble supreme Court as also the Division Bench of this Court, particularly considering the fact that since 1999 to 2016 the petitioner rendered his services on class III post, the impugned order of recovery dated 04.02.2025 (Annexure P-1) is quashed. Respondents are directed to return back the amount, if any, recovered from the petitioner within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of the order.

¶41

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

¶42

Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE

¶43

Jyoti

Santosh Kumar Dubey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar Dubey 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. Vimla Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Asma Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Umashankar Khunte Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sankalp Rai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kanha Tandi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Bindu Choubey Vs the State of Chhattisgarh