2026:CGHC:2657 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 443 of 2026 Ku. Anil Machmure D/o Shri Firtu Prasad Machmure, Aged About 58 Years R/o Sai Colony, Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (C.G.)

... Petitioner(s)

versus

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

2 - The Director, Public Instructions, Directorate Public Instructions, Raipur, First Floor, C Block, Indravati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District Raipur C.G.

3 - District Education Officer, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara C.G. 4 - The Principal, Government I.R.Y. Multipurpose Higher Secondary School Bhatapara, Block Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara C.G. 5 - Director, Local Fund Audit Raipur, Block No. 1, Second Floor, Indravati Bhawan, District Raipur C.G.

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner : Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate For State : Ms. Akanksha Verma Dabhadker, Panel Lawyer Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date:

2026.01.23 +0530 S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

Order on Board

16/01/2026 With the consent of parties, case is heard finally.

1. This petition is filed by the petitioner challenging order dated

30.10.2025 (Annexure P-1) whereby respondent No.4 has issued a direction to recover excess payment made to petitioner on the ground of wrong pay fixation.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner was appointed on a Class- III post i.e. Shikshakarmi Grade-III. Later on her services were absorbed in the School Education Department on the post of Teacher (LB) in the year 2018 and with the passage of time, she has been extended benefit of revision of pay scale. All of a sudden, vide order impugned dated 30.10.2025, respondent No.4 has directed for recovery of excess amount from petitioner on the ground that excess payment is made due to wrong pay fixation. He submits that alleged excess amount has been paid to petitioner on account of wrong pay-fixation, which was done by the respondents, and therefore, petitioner cannot be held responsible in any manner. He further submits that petitioner being a Class- III employee, respondents may not be permitted to recover amount which was erroneously paid to petitioner, without any misrepresentation or fraud on her part. In support of his submission, he places reliance on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab & ors vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & ors, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 and High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others vs. Jagdev Singh, reported in (2016) 14 SCC 267

3. Learned State Counsel would submit that petitioner was mistakenly paid excess salary on account of wrong pay fixation and therefore, the same is recoverable from her. She further submits that petitioner had submitted undertaking mentioning that if any payment is made to her in excess, she will return the same or the authorities will be at liberty to recover it from them. Therefore, the petitioner is now estopped from challenging the impugned recovery order.

4. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner submits that, even if at any point of time, petitioner has given consent for recovery of amount if paid in excess, then also excess amount cannot be recovered from salary of petitioner being Class-III employees. In support of his submission, he places reliance on the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WA No.264/2020 (State of CG vs Labha Ram Dhruv) and WA No.265/2020 (State of CG and others vs. Roshan Lal Baghel). He lastly contended that the impugned order is issued without any notice or opportunity of hearing and therefore also it is patently illegal being in violation of principles of natural justice.

5. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents available in record of writ petition.

6. In the 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