Dismissed

Manisha Korram v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC14 Sept 2026WPS/6208/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Chhattisgarh High Court quashed a recovery order sought from the widow of a deceased Class-III Forester. Relying on Rafiq Masih, the court held recovery impermissible due to lack of fraud, departmental pay fixation, and statute bar. The court directed refund of the deposited amount and barred future recovery of this excess from the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The impugned recovery order is quashed. The respondents are directed to refund ₹1,57,767/- deposited by the petitioner within six months.

Manisha Korram Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

CGHC010315942026

2026:CGHC:40227

NAFR

RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.09.16 17:03:55 +0530

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

WPS No. 6208 of 2026

¶8

Manisha Korram W/o Lt. Shri Rupaji Korram Aged About 37 Years R/o House No. 5/1, Jatpara, Prempal, Post- Kejang, Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh

¶9

Petitioner(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Forest And Climate Change Department (Forest Department) Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

2 - Principal Chief Conservator Of Forests Forest Department, Aranya Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶13

3 - Divisional Forest Officer Forest Division Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.)

¶14

Respondent(s)

¶15

(Cause-title taken from CIS)

¶16

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Navoday Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aditya Tiwari, PL

¶17

(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU)

¶18

Order on Board

¶19

15.09.2026

¶20

By the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking quashment of the recovery order dated 28.06.2024 (Annexure-P/1) issued by respondent No.3 i.e. Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division Kondagaon, District-

¶21

¶22

Kondagaon (C.G.).

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee, who was working on the post of Forester in Class-III cadre under the Forest Department, DistrictKondagaon. He submits that the husband of the petitioner died in harness on 02.05.2023. He further submits that vide impugned order dated 28.06.2024, respondent No.3 has directed recovery of an amount of ₹1,57,767/- from the petitioner on account of alleged excess payment made to the deceased employee during his service tenure. He submits that the pay of the deceased employee was fixed by the department itself and he had no role whatsoever in fixation of his pay or disbursement of salary. He further submits that the alleged excess payment relates to a period extending over several years and there is no allegation of any fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of facts on the part of the deceased employee. He submits that neither any show-cause notice nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the deceased employee during his lifetime or to the petitioner after his death before passing the impugned recovery order. Learned counsel further submits that the deceased employee was a Class-III employee and, therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 , recovery of excess payment from a Class-III employee is not permissible in the facts of the present case. He also places reliance upon the order passed by this Court in WPS No.12329 of 2025 and connected matters, Ameeta Markam v. State of Chhattisgarh

¶24

¶25

and others, decided on 13.01.2026 .

¶26

He further submits that the petitioner was compelled to deposit the amount demanded under the impugned recovery order for securing release of the death-cum-retiral benefits payable on account of the death of her husband. He submits that such deposit cannot validate an otherwise impermissible recovery. He, therefore, prays that the impugned recovery order be quashed and the respondents be directed to refund the amount deposited by the petitioner.

¶27

Learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the recovery order is just and proper and does not call for any interference.

¶28

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the documents annexed thereto.

¶29

The Supreme Court in case of Rafiq Masih(supra) has observed thus:

¶30

“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:

¶31

(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and ClassIV 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

¶34

¶35

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

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.”

¶39

In the aforementioned facts of the case, it is undisputed that the deceased employee was holding a Class-III post in the Forest Department. It is also not the case of the respondents that the deceased employee had received the alleged excess payment by practising fraud or by making any misrepresentation. The alleged excess payment was made pursuant to the pay fixation and disbursement undertaken by the departmental authorities. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble

¶40

¶41

Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (supra) , recovery of such excess payment cannot be sustained.

¶42

It is also relevant that the impugned recovery has been directed after the death of the employee and the amount has been sought to be recovered from the petitioner, who is his widow, without affording her any opportunity of hearing. The petitioner has already deposited the amount pursuant to the impugned order for securing release of the death-cumretiral benefits of her deceased husband.

¶43

Considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as also the order passed by this Court in Ameeta Markam (supra), the impugned order of recovery dated 28.06.2024 (Annexure-P/1) is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to refund the amount of ₹1,57,767/- deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the impugned recovery order within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is, however, made clear that the respondents shall be at liberty to undertake appropriate correction of the pay fixation of the deceased employee, if found erroneous, in accordance with law. Such correction, however, shall not entail recovery from the petitioner of the excess amount already paid to the deceased employee, having regard to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (supra).

¶44

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

(BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE

¶47

Rahul

Manisha Korram v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manisha Korram v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases