Allowed¶45

Romlal Khute v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC13 Jul 2026WPS/7105/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Erroneous pay fixation; excess salary recovery from serving employee; Class-III post; excess payment exceeding five years; State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334 categories applied; no fraud or misrepresentation; no show-cause notice; principles of natural justice; Commandant, Second Battalion CAF Sakri; refund of already recovered amount within two months; Chhattisgarh Armed Force; WPS No. 7105 of 2025; writ petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned recovery order dated 26.05.2025 (Annexure P/1) is set aside; the respondents are directed to release and refund to the petitioner any amount recovered or withheld pursuant to that order, and to complete the exercise within two months from receipt of a certified copy of the order. ¶45

Romlal Khute Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents were justified in revising the petitioner's pay fixation and directing recovery of Rs.5,31,705/- during his service period on the ground of erroneous pay fixation, particularly when the petitioner holds a Class-III post and there is no allegation of misrepresentation or fraud on his part. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

The petitioner holds a Class-III post; there is no material on record indicating that he obtained the excess payment by fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of any material fact, and the excess payment arose from an act attributable to the employer. His case squarely falls within the categories carved out by the Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (recovery from Class-III employees; excess payment made for a period in excess of five years before the recovery order), and consequently recovery of the alleged excess amount from him cannot be sustained in law.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

The record does not disclose that any show-cause notice was issued or any effective opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner prior to the impugned recovery order; the impugned action therefore stands vitiated for non-compliance with the principles of natural justice.

¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition allowed (Bibhu Datta Guru, J.): the recovery order dated 26.05.2025 issued by the Commandant, Second Battalion, CAF, Sakri, directing recovery of Rs.5,31,705/- from a serving Class-III employee on account of departmentally caused erroneous pay fixation persisting for a period exceeding five years, is impermissible under State of Punjab & Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334, there being no allegation of fraud, misrepresentation or suppression by the employee. The order, passed without any show-cause notice or effective opportunity of hearing, is additionally vitiated for non-compliance with the principles of natural justice. The recovery order is set aside and the respondents are directed to release and refund amounts recovered or withheld, within two months.

¶1

¶2

SOURABH BHILWAR

¶3

Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2026.07.15 11:00:29 +0530

CGHC010274672025

2026:CGHC:29768

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶8

WPS No. 7105 of 2025

¶9

Romlal Khute S/o Late Shri Milap Ram Khute Aged About 58 Years R/o Village And Post - Kosir, Police Station Kosir, Tahsil - Sarangarh District Sarangarh - Bilaigarh (C.G.)

¶10

... Petitioner

¶11

versus

¶12

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Department Of Home Police Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralay Police Station And Post - Rakhi Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶13

2 - Inspector General Of Police (Igp) O/o Inspector General Of Police Chhattisgarh Armed Force (Caf) Police Head Quqrter (Phq) Sector 19, Ps And Post - Rakhi, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶14

3 - Divisional Joint Director O/o Divisional Joint Director Treasury Accounts And Pension Near Nehru Chowk Bilaspur Division DisttBilaspur (C.G.)

¶15

4 - Commandant O/o Commandant Second Battalion Chhattisgarh Armed Force (Caf) Sakri, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶16

…. Respondent(s)

¶17

¶18

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶19

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate alongwith Mr. Sumadra Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.G. Yadav, Dy. Govt. Advocate

¶20

(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board

¶21

14/07/2026

¶22

By the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of the impugned recovery order dated 26.05.2025 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No.4/ Commandant, Second Battalion, Chhattisgarh Armed Forces (CAF), Sakri, District Bilaspur.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the service period of the petitioner, who is presently working as Company Commander, the respondents, upon verification of his service book, found that due to an erroneous fixation of pay, excess salary had been paid to the petitioner for a period exceeding five years. On that basis, respondent No.4 issued the impugned recovery order dated 26.05.2025 (Annexure P/1) directing recovery of Rs.5,31,705/-, and recovery has already commenced from the petitioner's salary. He submits that the alleged excess payment was neither on account of any misrepresentation nor fraud on the part of the petitioner but was solely due to an error committed by the department itself. It is further submitted that the petitioner is holding a Class-III post, and the impugned recovery is squarely hit by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer),

¶24

¶25

(2015) 4 SCC 334 , as recovery from a Class-III employee and recovery of excess payment made for a period exceeding five years are impermissible in law. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned recovery order is arbitrary, illegal and liable to be quashed.

¶26

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that at the time of pay fixation, it was found that the petitioner's pay had been erroneously fixed by clerical mistake, resulting in excess payment of salary during the course of service.

¶27

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings as well as the material available on record.

¶28

The principal issue that arises for consideration in the present case is whether the respondents were justified in revising the pay fixation of the petitioner and directing recovery of an amount of Rs.5,31,705/- during his service period on the ground of erroneous pay fixation, particularly when the petitioner was holding a Class-III post, and there is no allegation of any misrepresentation or fraud on his part. A further issue which requires consideration is whether the impugned order could have been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and whether the same are sustainable in light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (Supra).

¶29

In Rafiq Masih (Supra) , the Supreme Court held that while it is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship where

¶30

¶31

payments have mistakenly been made by an employer, in the following situations, a recovery by the employer 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). or

¶33

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

¶34

(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.

¶35

(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.

¶36

(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.

¶37

11. 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."

¶38

¶39

From a perusal of the record, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was holding a Class-III post. It is also not in dispute that there is no material available on record to indicate that the petitioner had obtained the alleged excess payment by practicing fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of any material fact. The excess payment, if any, appears to have arisen on account of an act attributable to the employer.

¶40

In the considered opinion of this Court, the case of the petitioner squarely falls within the categories carved out by the Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (Supra), inasmuch as the petitioner is holding a Class-III post and the alleged excess payment relates to a period much beyond preceding the issuance of the recovery order. Consequently, recovery of the alleged excess amount from the petitioner cannot be sustained in law.

¶41

Furthermore, the record does not disclose that any show-cause notice was issued or any effective opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner prior to passing the impugned recovery order. The impugned action, therefore, also stands vitiated for non-compliance with the principles of natural justice.

¶42

Accordingly, the impugned recovery order dated 26.05.2025 (Annexure P/1) is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to release and refund to the petitioner the amount, if any, recovered or withheld pursuant to the impugned recovery order. The respondents shall further ensure release of the amount

¶43

¶44

already recovered, if any, payable to the petitioner. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶45

In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶46

Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE

¶47

$. Bhilwar

Romlal Khute v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Romlal Khute 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

Dharam Vs Shri Him Shikhar Gupta

Mithilesh Tiwari Vs Shri Pardeshi Siddharth Komal, Secretary

Sheetal Kumar Tamrakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Kunti Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Avnish Kumar Keshri Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ku. Lata Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh