SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed 2026:CGHC:2105 by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Date:

2026.01.15

19:32:15 +0530 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 12486 of 2025

1 - Vijay Kumar Parmar S/o Shri Jagdish Ram Parmar Aged About 35 Years R/o House No. 4, Platpara, Makdi, Kondagaon, District -

Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Forest And Climate Change Department (Forest Department) Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Principal Chief Conservator Of Forests Forest Department, Aranya Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Divisional Forest Officer Forest Division Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.) ... Respondent(s)

For Petitioners : Mr. Navoday Singh, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Suyash Dhar Badgaiyan, Govt. Advocate SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Part Prateem Sahu

Order on Board

13/01/2026

1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 30.5.2024 by which respondent No.3 directed for recovery from petitioner of the amount which was erroneously paid to him during the period from July 2013 to March 2024 on account of wrong pay fixation.

2. Learned counsel for would submit that petitioner was appointed on a Class III post in the Forest 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 7.5.2024, respondent Divisional Forest Officer has directed for recovery of amount, as mentioned in impugned order, in 72 equal installments from petitioner on the ground that excess payment is made from July 2013 to March 2024 due to wrong pay fixation. He submits that alleged excess amount of salary 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 petitioner, 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

3. He further 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 a 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 is patently illegal being in violation of principles of natural justice.

4. Learned State Counsel would submit that during the period July 2013 to March 2024 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 him in excess, he will return the same or the authorities will be at liberty to recover it from him. Therefore, the petitioner is now estopped from challenging the impugned recovery order.

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 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 mis