Dinesh Kumar Soni Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT

¶3

2025:CGHC:38771

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 892 of 2023

¶7

1 - Dinesh Kumar Soni S/o Late Shri Mahadev Prasad Soni Aged About 63 Years Retired Head Master, Resident Of Juggipara, Ward No. 53, Potiyakala, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

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

¶11

2 - Divisional Joint Director (Kosh Lekha And Pension), Durg Division Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3 - District Education Officer Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶13

4 - Block Education Officer Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶14

... Respondent(s)

¶15

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)/State	: Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Panel Lawyer.

¶16

2

¶17

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶18

Order on Board

¶19

05/08/2025

¶20

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

¶21

“(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash order Annexure P/2 and recovered amount of Rs 1,19,615 may kindly be refunded with interest, in the interest of justice.

¶22

(ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted..”

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has retired Head Master of Government Primary School, Jhuggipara, Durg, on 31.03.2022. By letter dated 01.06.2022, the petitioner was informed that due to non-deposit of the recovery amount, his pension and other retiral dues could not be released. Consequently, under compulsion, the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs. 1,96,615/- through challan at the State Bank of India on 03.06.2022. The recovery was based on an earlier order dated 25.04.2022 issued by the Block Education Officer directing recovery of Rs. 1,19,615/- for the period from 01.11.1997 to 09.03.2017, without affording the petitioner any opportunity of hearing. He contended that the issue with regard to recovery of the excess payment made to the employees in particular, the

¶24

3

¶25

Class III and Class IV 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 Class III and Class IV employee to 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. He further submits that no recovery has been made from the petitioner.

¶26

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.

¶27

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

¶28

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (Supra) has observed thus:-

¶29

“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.

¶30

4

¶31

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:

¶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

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

¶38

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 :

¶39

5

¶40

“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 .

¶41

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 because of inaction, negligence and carelessness of

¶42

6

¶43

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.”

¶44

In light of the above authoritative judgments, facts of the present case are to be examined. The alleged excess payment was not made by any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner. In the considered opinion of this Court, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra). Therefore, the impugned order dated 25.4.2022 (Annexure P/2) is hereby set aside .

¶45

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that according to the documents placed on record, it is reflecting that the respondents have recovered entire amount of Rs.1,96,615/-, because petitioner under pressure has deposited the amount through challan in the year 2022. In the aforementioned facts of the case, the respondents are directed to return back the amount recovered from the petitioner within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of the order, failing

¶46

7

¶47

which, it shall carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum.

¶48