Allowed¶42

Rajendra Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Service law – recovery of excess salary

Chhattisgarh HC7 Apr 2025WPS/760/2021

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WPS No. 760 of 2021, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, decided 08/04/2025 by Justice Bibhu Datta Guru. Rajendra Kumar Sahu (Class-III driver, Pt. Sundarlal Sharma (Open) University) v. State of Chhattisgarh and others. Recovery of Rs. 1,55,340/- as excess salary via communication dated 15/01/2021 quashed as impermissible against a Class-III employee under State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334; no fraud by employee; Jogeshwar Sahoo v. District Judge, Cuttack (SLP (C) No. 5918/2024, 04/04/2025) relied on; refund directed within six weeks; petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned recovery proceedings quashed; respondent authorities directed to return Rs. 1,55,340/- to the petitioner within six weeks from receipt of a copy of the order. ¶42

Rajendra Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

2025:CGHC:16451

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 760 of 2021

¶6

RAHUL JHA

¶7

Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.04.09 11:45:52 +0530

¶8

1 - Rajendra Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Vishram Sahu Aged About 40 Years Working As Driver, Pt. Sundarlal Sharma (Open) University, Bilaspur, Resident Of Residential Colony, Pt. Sundarlal Sharma (Open) University, Birkona, District - Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

Petitioner(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Block - 3, Third Floor, Indravati Bhavan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District - Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

2 - Vice Chancellor Pt. Sundarlal Sharma (Open) University, Birkona, District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

3 - Registrar Pt. Sundarlal Sharma (Open) University, Birkona, District - Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

4 - Finance Officer Pt. Sundarlal Sharma (Open) University, Birkona, District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶15

Respondent(s)

¶16

(Cause title taken from Case Information System)

¶17

For Petitioner	: Mr. Amit Buxy, Advocate
For State	: Mr. Risabh Bisen, PL
For Resp. No. 2 to 4	: Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate

¶18

(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU)

Order on Board

08/04/2025

By the present writ petition, the petitioner, who is a Class-III employee, questioning the communication dated 15/01/2021 issued by respondent No.3 by which the recovery of amount of Rs. 1,55,340/- has been made against the petitioner.

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is 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 .

¶24

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 as such there is no illegality in the order impugned.

¶25

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

¶26

Rafiq Masih (supra).

¶27

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

¶28

“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:

¶29

(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III

¶30

¶31

and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service).

¶32

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

¶33

(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.

¶34

(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.

¶35

(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.

¶36

11. 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.”

¶37

It is not in dispute that the petitioner was holding Class-III post

¶38

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.

¶39

¶40

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)

¶41

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 the respondent authorities are directed to return the said amount to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶42

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

¶43

Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE

¶44

Rahul

Rajendra Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Kumar 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

Monitar Ram Kushwaha Vs District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. Ambikapur

Shyam Sunder Verma Vs S. Gopalakrishnan

Mrs. Jhal Kumari Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tosh Kumar Sinha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Komal Das Ghritesh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shailendra Kaushik Vs Shrimati Manju Mahendra Pandey