Allowed¶40

Ram Gulal Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Recovery of excess salary – Class-III employee – retired Headmaster – wrong fixation of pay

Chhattisgarh HC2 Mar 2026WPS/621/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur — WPS No. 621 of 2025 — decided 03/03/2026 — Justice Parth Prateem Sahu (single bench) — Ram Gulal Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh — recovery of excess pay — wrong pay fixation — Class-III employee — retired employee — Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334 — Thomas Daniel (2022 SCC OnLine SC 536) — quashing of recovery endorsement — refund with 8% interest.

What did the court decide?

Impugned endorsement Annexure P-1 quashed; respondents directed to return the recovered amount of Rs.1,36,888/- within three months from receipt of the order, failing which it shall carry 8% interest from the date of order till realization; petition allowed. ¶40

Ram Gulal Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

2026:CGHC:11118

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 621 of 2025

¶6

1 - Ram Gulal Sahu S/o Late Raja Ram Sahu Aged About 65 Years R/o Dallirajhara Ward No. 25, Anil Press Road Dallirajhara Post Dallirajhara, District Balod, C.G.

¶7

--- Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, C.G.

¶10

2 - Director Directorate Of Chhattisgarh Public Instruction Indravati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

3 - Joint Director Treasury, Account And Pension Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh

¶12

4 - District Education Officer Balod, District Balod, C.G.

¶13

BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN

¶14

--- Respondent(s)

¶15

(Cause title is taken from CIS system)

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Ajay Kumrani, P.L.

¶17

SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board

¶18

¶19

03/03/2026

¶20

Petitioner who retired as Headmaster from Government Primary School Katrel, Block Doundi, District Balod on 30.06.2024 has filed this writ petition against the recovery of amount of Rs.1,36,888/- from salary and had sought following relief (s) :-

¶21

“(i) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash impugned endorsement Annexure P-1 and amount recovered may be refunded with 18% interest, in the interest of justice.

¶22

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

¶23

Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher and retired from post of Headmaster Primary School. Post on which petitioner was appointed was Class-III posts and the post from which he stood retired was also of Class-III post. Respondents have recovered an amount of Rs.1,36,888/- from salary of petitioner by deducting Rs.6844/- per month stating therein that petitioner was paid excess salary due to wrong fixation of pay. He submits that respondents could not have recovered the amount from petitioner even if paid in excess to petitioner. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab & ors vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. , reported in ( 2015) 4 SCC 334 and Thomas Daniel Vs. State of Kerala & Ors (2022 SCC Online SC 536, and submits that recovery of the payment made mistakenly to Grade-III employee is not permissible. He also submits that this Court in number of cases relying upon the aforementioned decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court have

¶24

¶25

quashed the proceedings of recovery initiated against petitioner therein and prays for similar relief.

¶26

Learned State counsel do not dispute the status of petitioner being Class-III employees. He further submits that petitioner was paid excess salary due to wrong fixation of pay and after getting knowledge respondents have issued notice/order to petitioner during the period of his service on 11.03.2019 clearly mentioning that deduction is to be made of excess payment of his salary but notice/order was not put to challenge, till the petitioner stood retired and in the meanwhile, during service of petitioner, entire amount has been recovered.

¶27

I have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the reply submitted by State.

¶28

It is not in dispute that petitioner stood retired from Class-III post and due to wrong fixation of pay, excess payment of Rs.1,36,888/- was recovered from him vide order dated 11.03.2019 by deducting Rs.6844/- per month from his salary.

¶29

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) while considering the monetary gains wrongly extended to the petitioner therein in excess of entitlement and direction for its deduction being made by the employer, directed the employer to reimburse the amount deducted. Hon'ble Supreme Court had taken note of the situation wherein recovery by the employer would be impermissible in law and held thus :

¶30

“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.

¶31

¶32

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:

¶33

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

¶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

Perusal of the observation made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rafiq Masih (supra) shows that recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service group has been held to be impermissible. Relying upon the decision in the cases of Rafiq Masih (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Thomas Daniel (supra) has further held the recovery from the employees after long time to be unjustified.

¶39

¶40

For the foregoing discussion and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, impugned endorsement made in Annexure P-1 for recovery of Rs.1,36,888/- is hereby quashed. Respondents are directed to return back the amount so recovered from the petitioner within period of three months from the date of receipt of order. Otherwise the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 8% from the date of order till its realization.

¶41

Accordingly, this petition is allowed.

¶42

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶43

Balram

Ram Gulal Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Gulal Sahu 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

Arun Kumar Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dinesh Kumar Sahu Vs Shri Amit Katariya

Ajit Bharti Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shrawan Kumar Kathale Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vijay Lal Azaad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Rita Singh Vs Shri Amit Kataria