2026:CGHC:4395 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 14062 of 2025 Mohammed Akram Shekh S/o Mohammad Kasham Shekh Aged About 62 Years R/o Gopal Chowk, Gokul Nagar Mathpurena, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Home Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2 - Superintendent Of Police Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner : Mr. Barun Kumar Chakrabarty, Advocate For State : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Panel Lawyer S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

Order on Board

27.01.2026

1. With the consent of parties, case is heard finally.

2. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:

Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date:

2026.01.28 +0530 “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to be returned the above wrongly deducted amount Rs.2,21,191/- to the Petitioner in the interest of justice.

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

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner stood retired from service on 30^th September 2025 while working on the post of Constable. He contended that at the fag end of his service, respondent authority has issued letter for recovery of amount of Rs.2,21,191/-. Petitioner was compelled to give consent for deduction of amount from salary. He was threatened that if the consent is not given, his retiral dues will be withheld and accordingly petitioner submitted consent. Accordingly, for last 4 months of his service, an amount of Rs.25,000/- per month (Rs.1 lakh) is deducted from his salary . He also contended that when petitioner was not being paid retiral dues petitioner has deposited sum of Rs.2,21,191/- so that retiral dues to petitioner including pension may be disbursed in his favour and account. Recovery which is said to be made from petitioner is against excess payment made to him towards salary due to wrong fixation of pay. Excess payment is not on account of any suppression of fact or fraud played by petitioner with respondent authority. Petitioner is Class-III employee and therefore recovery of excess amount made to petitioner after lapse of long time is not permissible. In support of his submission he places reliance upon decision in case of State of Punjab & ors vs.

Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & ors, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State oppose submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that it is not in dispute that petitioner stood retired from service holding Class-III post. However, deduction is made pursuant to consent given by petitioner to the department in this regard. Recovery is against excess payment made to petitioner due to wrong fixation of pay. Consent letter is also filed as Annexure R-1. There is no arbitrariness on the part of respondent in deducting the amount which is paid in excess to petitioner.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with writ petition.

6. From the arguments which is advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties it is not in dispute that petitioner stood retired from post of Constable which is Class-III post.

7. Recovery which is made from petitioner is towards excess payment made to him due to wrong fixation of pay. It is not the case of respondent that excess payment is made to petitioner due to misrepresentation or suppression of fact or any fraud played by petitioner with respondent.

8. In case of Rafiq Masih (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court considering the issue of recovery of amount paid in excess has summarized the situations where in certain cases, even recovery from the employee by the employer would not be permissible in law. In Para-18 it was observed thus:-

“18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of re