Banshi Lal Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 1312 of 2026

¶5

Banshi Lal Patel S/o Shri Mohit Ram Patel Aged About 62 Years Previously Posted As Head Master At Government Middle School Sapnaipali, Block - Sakti, District - Sakti (C.G.)

¶6

... Petitioner(s)

¶7

Versus

¶8

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary School Education Department Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶9

2 - Director Directorate Of Public Instruction Iind Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶10

3 - District Education Officer Sakti, District Sakti (C.G.)

¶11

4 - Block Education Officer Sakti, District - Sakti (C.G.)

¶12

5 - Divisional Joint Director Treasury, Account And Pension Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶13

6 - Office Of Accountant General Zero Point Balodabazar Road Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶14

	... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) :	Ms. Apoorva Pandey, Advocate
For Respondent No. 1 to 5 :	Ms. Anuja Sharma, Dy. G.A.
For RespondentNo.6 :	Mr.JitendraNath Nande,Advocate

¶15

(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE PARTH PRATEEM SAHU)

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

22/04/2026

¶18

1. Petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) :-

¶19

“10.1) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/ set-aside the impugned calculation-sheet of recovery (Annexure-P/1) relevant to the petitioner;

¶20

2

¶21

10.2) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to refund the amount of Rs. 1,34,835/deposited by the petitioner, with interest of 6% per annum.

¶22

10.3) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.”

¶23

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner while working on the post of Head Master, Middle School, stood retired from service on 30.06.2025. After his retirement, the respondent authorities had handed over the petitioner a calculation-sheet mentioning that excess payment of Rs. 1,34,835 is made to the petitioner towards the salary. She contended that as the petitioner was informed by the authorities that, till the excess amount paid to him is not deposited, the retiral dues will not be disbursed in his favour, he had deposited a sum of Rs. 1,34,835/-. The recovery as made by the respondent authorities from the petitioner is illegal and arbitrary. She contended that the petitioner is a Class-III employee, and if or any the excess payment is made towards the salary of his no fault, then the recovery is not permissible as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334. The respondent authorities be directed to refund a sum of Rs. 1,34,835/-, which the petitioner has deposited pursuant to the calculation-sheet Annexure-P/1.

¶24

3. Counsel for the State submits that according to Annexure-P/1, it is appearing that the petitioner was paid excess amount towards the salary from the period of 2018 till 2025 and the total sum which is said to be paid in excess to the petitioner is computed as Rs. 1,34,835/-. She also contended that when the calculation-sheet is handed over to

¶25

3

¶26

the petitioner, he voluntarily deposited the excess payment received by him and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for relief as prayed for, of refund of the amount of Rs. 1,34,835/-.

¶27

4. Counsel for the respondent No. 6 would submit that the calculation chart is prepared by the State authorities and pursuant thereto the petitioner had deposited the amount as mentioned therein.

¶28

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶29

6. From the documents placed along with the writ petition and the pleadings made in writ petition as also reply and the submission made by counsel for respective parties, it is appearing that the petitioner while in government service, was paid excess amount towards the salary. It is not the case of the respondent-State that excess payment is made to the petitioner due to his own wrong of suppression of material fact, misrepresentation or playing fraud with the Government authorities.

¶30

7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rafiq Masih (supra), while dealing with the recovery of the amount paid in excess to the government servant has laid down the following guidelines which is extracted below for ready reference;

¶31

“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:

¶32

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

¶33

4

¶34

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

¶35

(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.

¶36

(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.

¶37

(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. “

¶38

8. In the aforementioned decision, Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that recovery is impermissible from the Class-III & Class IV employees and further from the retired employees. In the case at hand the recovery is sought from the petitioner after his retirement.

¶39

9. In the case of Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala , 2022 SCC OnLine SC 536 (decided on 02-05-2022), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the principles laid down in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra).

¶40

10. For the foregoing discussions, facts and circumstances of the case, submission of counsel for the respective parties, in the considered opinion of this Court, no recovery could have been made from the petitioner of a sum of Rs. 1,34,835/- on the ground that excess payment is towards salary.

¶41

11. For the foregoing reasons, the respondent-State is directed to refund the amount of Rs. 1,34,835/- which the petitioner has deposited in the government treasury pursuant to the computation Annexure-P/1, prepared by it under the signature of Block Education Officer and

¶42

5

¶43

deposited by the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the Order, failing which the said amount shall further carry interest @ 8 % from the date of Order till its realization.

¶44

12. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

(Parth Prateem Sahu) JUDGE

¶47

Saurabh

Banshi Lal Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Banshi Lal Patel 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

Siddharth Bharti Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Sati Soni Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Ashok Kumar Sambhakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Prahlad Singh Agariya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramlochan Vaishnav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pushpa Baiga Vs State of Chhattisgarh