Smt. Sundari Bai Matwale Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:1227

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 955 of 2021

¶6

Smt. Sundari Bai Matwale Wd/o Late Santram Matwale Aged About 62 Years R/o House No. E-211, Gurughasidas Collony, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

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

¶10

2 - Director General Of Police Police Headquarter, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶11

3 - Superintendent Of Police Training School Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner : Ms. Khushbu Sahu, Advocate holding brief of Mr. C. R. Sahu, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Topilal Bareth, Panel Lawyer

¶14

({Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput})

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

08/01/2026

¶17

Following relief (s) has been claimed in this petition -

¶18

“(I) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the

¶19

2

¶20

impugned recovery order dated 10.12.2020 and letter dated 24.12.2020 Annexure P-1 and AnnexureP-2, in the interest of justice. (ii) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ and order or directions to the respondents to be released the recovered amount of Rs. 34110/- from the arrears of 7^th pay scale, in the interest of justice.

¶21

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

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of the petitioner was working on the post of Inspector with the respondent/department and retired on 30.04.2016 after attaining the age of superannuation. Thereafter, he died on 28.11.2017. After the death of the husband of the petitioner, the impugned order Annexure P/1 & P/2 were passed thereby directing a recovery of Rs. 110369/- on account of some excess payment of Naxal allowances. An amount of Rs. 34110/- was adjusted against the arrears of 7^th pay commission payable to the husband of the petitioner and remaining amount of Rs. 76259/- directed to be deposited. She further submits that the husband of the petitioner was Class-III employee and the impugned order was passed after retirement and also after his demise, therefore, the petitioner being class-III employee, cannot be subjected to any recovery in the light of judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and ors etc. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc., 2015) 4 SCC 334. She further submits that the judgment of Rafiq Masih (supra) has been subsequently followed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Thomas Daniel vs. State of Kerala and others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine 536 and Jogeswar Sahoo & ors. vs. The District Judge, Cuttack & ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 724. Thus, she prays that the impugned recovery may be set aside and the amount so recovered may be returned to the petitioner.

¶23

Learned State counsel while opposing the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner submits that inadvertently, the husband of the petitioner was paid excess amount on account of Naxal allowance and when this fact came into the surface, the recovery orders were passed. Therefore, there is not illegality or irregularity in the impugned recovery orders.

¶24

3

¶25

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶26

There is no dispute to the fact that the husband of the petitioner was working as Inspector and retired on 30.04.2016 after attaining the age of superannuation. Thereafter, he died on 28.11.2017. It is not a case of the respondent that the excess payment with regard to Naxal allowance was made on account of any miss-representation or fraud played by the husband of the petitioner. The respondents’ counsel is not in a position to dispute that the petitioner’s husband was a class-III employee. The issue involved in this case is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) wherein the Supreme Court has laid down certain situations where it has been categorically held that it would be impressible under law for the employer to make recovery. The situations as envisaged in the said judgment are as under:

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

(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.

¶30

(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.

¶31

(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.”

¶32

The judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) has also been followed with approval in the case of Thomas Daniel (supra) and Jogeswar Sahoo (supra). In the light of above, no recovery can be made from the petitioner on account of some excess payment made to the husband of the petitioner during his life time. Accordingly, the impugned

¶33

4

¶34

Ami

¶35

order Annexure P/1 in respect to the petitioner’s husband is set-aside likewise Annexure P/2 is also set-aside. If any amount is recovered the same shall be refunded back to the petitioner within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.

¶36

Sd/({Sachin Singh Rajput}) JUDGE

¶37

AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEYDate: 2026.01.14 17:22:25 +0530

Smt. Sundari Bai Matwale v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sundari Bai Matwale 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

Vikas Sonboir Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Heera Singh Vs Seema Singh

Satish Chand Minj Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajju Verma Vs Kashiram

Ishwar Das Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Savitri Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh