Disposed¶11

Ballu Ram Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Service law – recovery of excess payment – wrong fixation of pay

Chhattisgarh HC7 Aug 2025WPS/311/2023

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of recovery of excess pay made on account of wrong fixation of pay; order passed without show-cause notice or hearing, breaching natural justice and Finance Department circulars dated 27.05.2008 and 06.08.2015; low-paid employee, salary spent in good faith, no fraud or misrepresentation, disproportionate hardship; Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334 and Syed Abdul Qadir (2009) 3 SCC 475 applied; Chhattisgarh Pay Revision Rules, 2009; High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur; Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad; order dated 08/08/2025; WPS Nos. 296, 311 and 335 of 2023 clubbed and disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Recovery order dated 11.10.2022 quashed; no recovery to be made from the petitioner's salary pursuant to it; writ petitions disposed of. ¶11

Ballu Ram Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Recovery order dated 11.10.2022 quashed; no recovery to be made from the petitioner's salary pursuant to it; writ petitions disposed of.

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the recovery order dated 11.10.2022 passed by respondent No. 3 without any show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing, for recovery of excess payment made on account of alleged wrong fixation of pay, is arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in law. +1 more

¶4

Court's answer

The impugned recovery order dated 11.10.2022 was passed unilaterally by respondent No. 3 without issuance of any show-cause notice or affording an opportunity of hearing, in violation of the principles of natural justice and the Finance Department circulars dated 27.05.2008 and 06.08.2015.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

Recovery after a considerable lapse of time from the petitioner - a low-paid employee at the lowest rung of the service hierarchy who received and utilized the salary in good faith, with no misrepresentation or fraud and pay fixed by the competent authority under the Chhattisgarh Pay Revision Rules, 2009 - would cause disproportionate hardship and financial distress and is impermissible in law in terms of Rafiq Masih and Syed Abdul Qadir.

¶9

Key takeaways

The recovery order dated 11.10.2022 is unsustainable in law and is quashed.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service law - recovery of excess payment - wrong fixation of pay - recovery order dated 11.10.2022 passed by respondent No. 3 (Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Federation Ltd.) without show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing - violative of principles of natural justice and of Finance Department circulars dated 27.05.2008 and 06.08.2015 mandating notice before recovery - petitioner, a low-paid employee at the lowest rung, received and utilized salary in good faith; no misrepresentation or fraud; pay fixed by competent authority under Chhattisgarh Pay Revision Rules, 2009 - recovery after long lapse would cause disproportionate hardship - applying State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334 and Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar (2009) 3 SCC 475 - recovery order quashed; writ petitions (WPS Nos. 296, 311 and 335 of 2023, clubbed) disposed of.

¶1

¶2

2025:CGHC:39910

¶3

Digitally VISHAKHA signed by BEOHAR VISHAKHA BEOHAR

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 296 of 2023

¶7

1 - Dhruw Kumar Thakur S/o Sonsingh Thakur Aged About 60 Years Resident Of Village Selud, Tahsil Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh

¶8

--- Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Fishculture Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - The Director Directorate Of Chhattisgarh State Audit, Block-1, Second Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - The Executive Engineer Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Fedration Limited, Macchli Palan Vibhag Parisar, Near Telibandha, G.E.Road, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶13

--- Respondent(s)

¶14

WPS No. 311 of 2023

¶15

1 - Ballu Ram Verma S/o Late Dwarika Prasad Verma Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Selud, Tahsil Patan, District Durg (C.G.)

¶16

--- Petitioner(s)

¶17

¶18

Versus

¶19

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

¶20

2 - The Director Directorate Of Chhattisgarh State Audit, Block-1, Second Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar (C.G.)

¶21

3 - The Executive Engineer Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Federation Limited, Machhli Palan Vibhag Parisar, Near Telibandha Tana, Ravigram, Telibandha, G.E. Road, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶22

--- Respondent(s)

¶23

WPS No. 335 of 2023

¶24

1 - Ashok Kumar Yadav S/o Late Santu Ram Yadav Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Selud, Tahsil Patan, District Durg Chhattisgarh

¶25

--- Petitioner(s)

¶26

Versus

¶27

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Fishiculture Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶28

2 - The Director Directorate Of Chhattisgarh State Audit, Block-1, Second Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar Chhattisgarh

¶29

3 - The Executive Engineer Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Federation Limited, Machhli Palan Vibhag Parisar, Near Telibandha Thana, Ravigram, Telibandha, G. E. Road, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶30

... Respondent(s)

¶31

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Rohan Patnaik, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)/State	: Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Panel Lawyer.

¶32

¶33

For Respondent No. 3

¶34

: Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate

¶35

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶36

Order on Board

¶37

08/08/2025

¶38

Since all the petitioners have filed separate petitions while raising a common grievance. Therefore, these petitions are being clubbed together, heard together, and decided together by this common order.

¶39

The reliefs prayed for by the petitioners in all the writ petitions are same and one with certain variations, however, in order to adjudicate these petitions, WPS No. 296 of 2023 (Dhruw Kumar Thakur ) has been taken as lead petition for deciding the issues involved in these cases.

¶40

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

¶41

“10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the impugned order dated 11.10.2022 (Annexure P/1) and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities not to recovery any amount from the salary of the petitioner pursuant to the impugned order.

¶42

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to

¶43

¶44

release the unpaid arrears amount in favour of petitioner, in accordance with law, with interest from the date of entitlement to its actual payment. 10.3 That any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may be given.”

¶45

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 11.10.2022 is arbitrary, illegal, and bad in law. It is contended that the said order has been passed by respondent no. 3 without affording any opportunity of hearing or issuing any show-cause notice to the petitioner, in complete violation of the principles of natural justice, and contrary to the specific directions issued by the Finance Department vide circulars dated 27.05.2008 and 06.08.2015, which categorically provide that no recovery of excess payment on account of wrong fixation of pay shall be made without due notice and opportunity of hearing. It is further submitted that the pay of the petitioner had been fixed strictly in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Pay Revision Rules, 2009, and there was no misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner. The alleged excess payment, if any, was made solely due to the actions of the competent authority, for which the petitioner cannot be held responsible. It is further stated that the petitioner, being a low-paid employee belonging to the lowest

¶46

¶47

rung of service, has already spent the emoluments received in good faith for the upkeep of her family. Recovery after a long lapse of time would cause severe financial hardship and is wholly inequitable. It is argued that compelling the petitioner to refund the amount after such a long period would not only be unreasonable but would also impair her ability to meet essential needs such as food, shelter, education, and medical expenses for her dependents. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors., (2015) 4 SCC 334, wherein it has been categorically held that recovery of excess payments is impermissible in certain situations, particularly in cases involving Class III and IV employees, and where recovery would result in undue hardship. It is urged that the petitioner’s case squarely falls within the parameters laid down in the said decision and therefore the impugned recovery order deserves to be quashed.

¶48

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents/State submits that since wrong fixation has been mentioned in the service book as such it is required to be recovered from the petitioner as excessive amount has been paid which is apparent from the fixation of pay scale itself.

¶49

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

¶50

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (Supra)

¶51

¶52

has observed thus:-

¶53

“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:

¶54

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

¶55

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

¶56

(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.

¶57

(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.

¶58

(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. ”

¶59

Also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Abdul

¶60

¶61

Qadir and 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 :

¶62

“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 .

¶63

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

¶64

¶65

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.”

¶66

Having considered the rival submissions of the parties, facts and circumstances of the case, aforesaid laws laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court and upon perusal of the material on record, this Court finds that the impugned recovery order dated 11.10.2022 has been passed unilaterally by respondent No. 3 without issuance of any show-cause notice or affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Such action is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice as well as the binding circulars issued by the Finance Department dated 27.05.2008 and 06.08.2015, which mandate that no recovery on account of alleged excess payment due to wrong fixation shall be made without notice and proper opportunity of hearing. It is undisputed that the petitioner was not at fault in the fixation of pay, which was carried out by the

¶67

¶68

competent authority in accordance with the Chhattisgarh Pay Revision Rules, 2009. There is no allegation of misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner. As a low-paid employee belonging to the lowest rung of the service hierarchy, the petitioner had received and utilized the salary in good faith for sustenance and essential needs of her family. The recovery after a considerable lapse of time would cause disproportionate hardship and financial distress to the petitioner.

¶69

Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the recovery order dated 11.10.2022 is unsustainable in law and deserves to be quashed and is hereby quashed .

¶70

With the aforementioned observation, writ petition is disposed of.

¶71

Sd/-

¶72

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

¶73

Judge

¶74

Vishakha

Ballu Ram Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ballu Ram Verma 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna Lal Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nawab Ali Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohan Singh Paraste Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dhruw Kumar Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dilip Kumar Paikara Vs State of Chhattisgarh