Allowed¶50

Punnalal Jaiswal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Service law – recovery of excess salary

Chhattisgarh HC1 Jul 2026WPS/1225/2021

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court Bilaspur; WPS No. 1225 of 2021; decided 02.07.2026 by Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.; recovery of excess salary; cancellation of pay fixation order dated 20.09.2018 by order dated 19.01.2021; Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334 para 18 situations applied; Class-III/Group C employee; no notice or opportunity of hearing; no misrepresentation or suppression of facts; quashing of recovery order; refund of recovered amount; Excise Constable; contingency-paid Salesman appointed 05.06.1996; regularization 30.12.2008; writ petition allowed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the impugned order dated 19.01.2021 (Annexure P/1) and refund of any recovered amount to the petitioner forthwith; writ petition allowed with no order as to costs. ¶50

Punnalal Jaiswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the impugned order dated 19.01.2021 (Annexure P/1) and refund of any recovered amount to the petitioner forthwith; writ petition allowed with no order as to costs.

¶50

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 19.01.2021 cancelling the pay fixation order dated 20.09.2018 and directing recovery of excess salary is sustainable when it was passed without notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. +1 more

¶47

Court's answer

The impugned order dated 19.01.2021 was passed without notice or opportunity of hearing, and the pay fixation benefit of 20.09.2018 had continued for a considerable period without any objection.

¶47

Ratio / Principle

Recovery from a Class-III employee in these circumstances is impermissible according to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih; the petitioner belongs to Class-III service.

¶48

Key takeaways

If the order dated 20.09.2018 was erroneously issued, the petitioner cannot be faulted for it, as he never misrepresented any fact or suppressed any material information.ratio¶48
The impugned order dated 19.01.2021 (Annexure P/1) is quashed and any recovered amount shall be refunded to the petitioner forthwith.ratio¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service law — recovery of excess salary — pay fixation order dated 20.09.2018 allowing counting of service from initial appointment cancelled by order dated 19.01.2021 passed by District Excise Officer with direction to recover excess payment — petitioner, an Excise Constable belonging to Class-III service, had enjoyed the benefit for a considerable period without objection and was not heard before cancellation — applying the situations summarised in para 18 of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334, recovery from a Class-III employee held impermissible, particularly where the employee never misrepresented any fact or suppressed material information — impugned order dated 19.01.2021 quashed; recovered amount, if any, to be refunded forthwith; writ petition allowed without costs.

-1-

2026:CGHC:27060

NAFR

Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 1225 of 2021

¶7

Punnalal Jaiswal S/o Late Brijlal Jaiswal Aged About 51 Years Working On The Post Of Excise Constable, R/o Village- Sakaria, Post- Podi, Bachra, Excise Circle- Chirmiri, TahsilChirmiri, District- Koriya, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Excise Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - The Excise Commissioner Aabkari Bhavan, Chhokara Nala, Labhandi, Raipur, DistrictRaipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - District Excise Officer Baikunthpur, District- Koriya, Chhattisgarh., District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate For State : Mr. Kawaljeet Singh Saini, Deputy Government Advocate

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board

-2-

02.07.2026

1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1. That Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondents to produce the entire records relating to the service of petitioner.

¶20

10.2 That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ in the nature of Certiorari/Mandamus and quash the order dated 19.01.2021 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent no. 3 and further direct to reinstate the earlier order dated 20.09.2018 (Annexure P/6).

¶21

10.3. That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be direct the respondents for payment of salary to the petitioner from 25.05.1993 as per the order dated 20.09.2018 (Annexure P/6), with interest.

¶22

10.4. That, Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the operation and effect of the impugned the order dated 19.01.2021 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent no. 3 till the final decision of the petition.

¶23

10.5. Any other relief, which Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and petition, may kindly be allowed with costs. ”

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Salesman under the contingency paid category, pursuant to the decision of the State Government taken in the year 1993, wherein decision was taken to cancel the private tender process of sale of liquor and to operate wine shops by the State itself. Accordingly, 518 posts of Salesman were sanctioned under the contingency paid category. He would further submit that for filling up

¶25

the said posts, the names of eligible candidates were requisitioned from the Employment Exchange, and thereafter, the petitioner, along with other

¶26

-3-

¶27

candidates, was appointed as a Salesman on a contingency basis for a period of 89 days vide order dated 05.06.1996, on a pay scale of Rs. 950–1530/-. He would also submit that, according to the circulars and policy decisions of the State Government issued from time to time, the petitioner was granted revised pay scale vide order dated 31.10.2000. Thereafter, vide order dated 30.12.2008, the services of the petitioner were regularized and he was appointed to the post of Excise Constable in the regular pay scale of Rs. 3050-75-3950-80-4590.

¶28

1. It is further contended that pursuant to order dated 20.09.2018, decision was taken to count the services of the petitioner from his initial date of appointment for the purposes of pay fixation. Based on the said order, the petitioner’s pay was duly fixed, and he was being paid salary accordingly without any interruption.

¶29

1. However, all of a sudden, and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the respondent authorities passed the impugned order dated 19.01.2021 (Annexure P/1), whereby the earlier order dated 20.09.2018 was canceled and the recovery was ordered of the amount alleged to have been paid in excess to the petitioner pursuant to the said pay fixation. He has placed reliance on the judgment rendered in State of Punjab and Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer); (2015) 4 SCC 334 .

¶30

1. On the other hand, Mr. Pandey, learned counsel for the State, would oppose the submission made by counsel for the petitioner and would submit that the pay

¶31

-4-

¶32

fixation order dated 20.09.2018 was passed contrary to the service rules, therefore, the same was rightly withdrawn by the impugned order dated

¶33

19.01.2021, and the excess amount paid is liable to be recovered.

¶34

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the

¶35

record.

¶36

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra) in para 18 held as under:–

¶37

“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:

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

(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.

¶41

(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.

¶42

(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

¶43

-5-

¶44

extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover. ”

¶45

1. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner belongs to Class-III

¶46

service and he was granted pay fixation benefits pursuant to a decision taken by the competent authority dated 20.09.2018. The said benefit continued in favor of

¶47

the petitioner for a considerable period without any objection. The impugned order dated 19.01.2021 has been passed without notice or opportunity of hearing.

¶48

1. Further, if the order dated 20.09.2018 was erroneously issued, the petitioner cannot be faulted for the same, as he never misrepresented any fact or suppressed any material information. Recovery from a Class-III employee, in such circumstances, would be impermissible according to law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rafiq Masih (supra) .

¶49

10) Accordingly, the impugned order dated 19.01.2021 (Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed . Recovered amount, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioner forthwith.

¶50

11) Consequently, the writ petition is allowed . No order as to cost(s).

¶51

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶52

Nadim

Punnalal Jaiswal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punnalal Jaiswal 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

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Shri Shiv Kumar Mishra

Sarda Energy and Minerals Limited Vs Income Tax Officer (Tds)

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Shri Babulal Sahu

Vikky Soni Vs Kulpati

Mrs. Lata Korram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Ganesh Ores Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S South Eastern Coalfields Ltd.