SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED 2026:CGHC:2656 ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI NAFR Date: 2026.01.20 12:17:37 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 444 of 2026

1. Resham Lal Sahu S/o B. L Sahu Aged About 62 Years Working As Patwari Tehsil Office Korba R/o C S E B Colony, Kosabadi Korba District Korba (C.G.)

... Petitioner versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, New Raipur (C.G.)

2. The Collector Korba, District Korba (C.G.) 3. The Tehsildar Korba District Korba (C.G.)

4. The Joint Director Treasury Accounts And Pension Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.)

5. District Treasury Office Korba, District Korba (C.G.)

... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Advocate For Respondents : Ms. Akansha Verma, Panel Lawyer S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

Order On Board

16/1/2026

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

2. Grievance of petitioner in this writ petition is with regard to recovery of Rs.7,90,792/- from the salary of petitioner on the ground of excess payment made to him.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that petitioner was appointed on a Class III post i.e. Patwari, in the Revenue Department and with the passage of time, he has been extended benefit of revision of pay scale. All of a sudden, vide order impugned dated 15.12.2025, respondent No.3 has directed for recovery of amount of Rs.7,90,792/- from salary of petitioner in equal installments on the ground that excess payment is made from 1.1.2016 to 30.11.2025 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 are not entitled to recover amount which was erroneously paid to petitioners, without any misrepresentation or fraud on his 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

4. Learned State Counsel would submit that during the period

1.1.2016 to 30.11.2025 petitioner was mistakenly paid excess salary on account of wrong pay fixation and therefore, the same was recovered. He further submits that petitioner had submitted undertaking mentioning that if any payment is made to them in excess, they will return the same or the authorities will be at liberty to recover it from them. Therefore, the petitioners are now estopped from challenging the impugned recovery order.

5. 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 entire recovery is made without any notice or opportunity of hearing and therefore also it is patently illegal being in violation of principles of natural justice.

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

7. 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 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 recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made