Smt. Sati Soni Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1 / 6

¶2

2026:CGHC:18244

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 1221 of 2025

¶6

Smt. Sati Soni W/o Shri Dagalal Soni Aged About 62 Years R/o. Bti Road, Ward No. 29, Behind Irrigation Quarter, Mahasamund, P.S. - City Kotwali, Tahsil And District- Mahasamund (C.G.)

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, Police Station And PostRakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

Divisional Joint Director O/o. Divisional Joint Director, Treasury- Accounts And Pension, Ghadi Chowk, Raipur Division, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

Chief Medical And Health Officer (Cmho) O/o. Cmho, Mahasamund, Distt.Mahasamund (C.G.)

¶12

Block Medical Officer (Bmo) O/o. Bmo, Community Health Center, Tumgaon, Distt.- Mahasamund (C.G.)

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

For Petitioners : Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate with Mr. Rishabhdev Sahu, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Govt. Adv.

¶15

PAWAN
KUMAR
JHA
Digitally
signed by
PAWAN
KUMAR JHA

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶17

ORDER ON BOARD

¶18

21/04/2026

¶19

Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the impugned recovery order dated 09.09.2024 (Annexure P-1) issued by Respondent No. 4/ Block Medical Officer, Community Health Center, Tumgaon, Distt. Mahasamund, C.G., by which recovery of amount to the tune of Rs. 3,18,566 has been sought from petitioner.

¶20

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was working on the post of Lady Health Visitor (HLV) in Community Health Center, Tumgaon

¶21

2 / 6

¶22

in the office of Respondent No. 4, which is a Class-III post. She stood retire on 31.10.2024 after attaining the age of superannuation. Before the due retirement of petitioner, Respondent No. 4 issued an order dated 09.09.2024 (Annexure P-1) for recovery of an amount of Rs. 3,18,566 on the ground that excess payment is made to petitioner due to wrong pay fixation of pay for the period from 01.07.2011 to 31.08.2024. He submits that on 29.10.2024, two days before the date of retirement, Rural Medical Assistant, Primary Health Center, Birkoni issued No Dues Certificate to petitioner. It is contention of learned counsel for petitioner that in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & ors vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & ors, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 recovery of excess payment from the petitioner/ Class-III employee, in the facts of the case, is not permissible. He also contended that from the face of the order it is apparent that excess payment is not made to petitioner because of her misrepresentation or any fraud played by petitioner to the respondent-department. Recovery of amount if paid in excess cannot be made from her. Therefore, action on the part of respondent-department in deducting the amount as mentioned towards excess payment is per se illegal and arbitrary. He also places reliance upon Thomas Daniel vs. State of Kerala reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 536.

¶23

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and submits that from the order Annexure P-1 it is apparent that excess payment has been made to petitioner due to wrong fixation of pay for the period from 01.07.2011 to 31.08.2024 and petitioner has also given undertaking, Annexure R-5 dated 09.05.2025, for recovery of amount, if paid in excess to petitioner. He contended that the case of respondent is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Punjab and Haryana and others vs. Jagdev Singh , reported in (2016) 14 SCC 267, Chandi Prasad Uniyal vs. State of Uttrakhand and others reported in (2012) 8 SCC 417.

¶24

3 / 6

¶25

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents enclosed along with writ petition.

¶26

From the arguments which is advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of documents, it is not in dispute that petitioner stood retire while holding the post of Lady Health Visitor (HLV), which is Class-III post. She was paid excess payment due to wrong fixation of pay for the period from 01.07.2011 to 31.08.2024. It is also not disputed by the respondents that excess payment is made to petitioner due to misrepresentation or suppression of fact or any fraud played by petitioner with respondent-department.

¶27

In case of Rafiq Masih (supra) , Hon’ble Supreme Court considering the issue of recovery of amount paid in excess has summarized the situations where in certain cases, even recovery from the Class-III and Class-IV employee by the employer would not be permissible in law. Further in the case of Thomas Daniel (supra) , Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered its earlier decision in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) and set aside the order of recovery from the appellant therein. In Para-18 of the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) it was observed thus:-

¶28

“ 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 hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers would be impermissible in law:

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

(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.

¶32

4 / 6

¶33

(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.

¶34

(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.

¶35

So far as submission of learned counsel for the State that petitioner has given undertaking/ consent for refund of the excess amount paid to her at the time of fixation of pay is concerned, perusal of Annexure R-5 enclosed along with return filed by State would show that consent from the petitioner is obtained after her retirement on 09.05.2025 and petitioner stood retired on 31.10.2024. In the aforementioned facts of case, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has submitted the consent letter/ undertaking for refund of the amount under the pressure and threat that she may not be paid retiral dues, cannot be overlooked. Even if some undertaking is given then also it will not be a ground for respondentdepartment to recover the amount when Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rafiq Masih (supra) in categorical terms has held that recovery of excess amount from Class-III and Class-IV employee is impermissible in law.

¶36

In case of High Court of Jagdev Singh (supra) , Hon’ble Supreme Court though had considered the issue with regard to the undertaking, however, Para-10 (i) of the decision in case of Rafiq Masih (supra) has not been overruled or interfered. This aspect is also considered by the Division Bench of this Court in WA No.264/2020 (State of CG vs Labha Ram Dhruv ) wherein it was observed thus:

¶37

“ 9. In the case at hand, the Revision of Pay Rules, 2009 and 2017 do not make any enabling provision reserving option for the employer to seek refund of the amount paid in excess, by making the employee to furnish an undertaking. Even if we conclude, for the sake of arguments, that even in the absence of

¶38

5 / 6

¶39

enabling provision under the Rules, undertaking given by the employee would operate, the fact remains that against the classes of employees against whom recovery would be impermissible in law, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (Supra), recovery from the employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service) would still be impermissible in law. Meaning thereby that even when undertaking is submitted by the employee, but he otherwise belongs to Class-III and Class-IV service, and the amount has been paid more than 5 years back, the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (Supra) would still hold the field in favour of such employees, because the judgment in the matter of Rafiq Masih (Supra) has not been overruled, but only clarified, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its later judgment in the matter of Jagdev Singh, Supra”

¶40

From perusal of the above, it is clear that the recovery from the employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV category (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service) is held to be impermissible in law. Meaning thereby that even if undertaking is submitted by the employee, but he otherwise belongs to Class-III or Class-IV service, recovery of excess amount from him/her is impermissible and that too after retirement from the service.

¶41

The other decisions as relied by learned counsel for the respondent-State is prior to the decision in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) and therefore will not be applicable to the facts of present case.

¶42

In the case at hand, admittedly, petitioner was holding a post of Class-III in the Department of Health and Family Welfare. It is also not the case of respondents that petitioner had received excess payment by practicing fraud or by making misrepresentation. Thus, petitioner could not have been compelled to return the amount which has been paid by the respondents on their own without any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of petitioner.

¶43

6 / 6

¶44

In light of above decisions and in the given facts and circumstances of the case, in the considered opinion of this Court, the respondents cannot be permitted to effect recovery from the petitioner of the amount paid in excess and being so, recovery against petitioner is not sustainable.

¶45

Consequently, writ petition is allowed and the impugned recovery order Annexure P-1 dated 09.09.2024, as it relates to recovery of amount of Rs. 3,18,566 from petitioner, is hereby quashed. Respondents are directed to return back the amount, if any, recovered from petitioner or deducted from the retiral dues of petitioner towards recovery of excess payment, within a further period of 04 months from the date of receipt of order passed by this Court, failing which the recovered amount shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of order passed by this Court till its realization.

¶46

Certified copy as per rules.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

(Parth Prateem Sahu)

¶49

JUDGE

¶50

pwn

Smt. Sati Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sati Soni 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

Santosh Kumar Rathore Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gyaneshwar Dewangan Vs Mr. Atul Vishvkarma

Rajendra Verma Vs Shri Him Shikhar Gupta

Khumendra Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

P.L. Gajbhiye Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sangram Singh Rajput Vs National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd.