2025:CGHC:61437 Digitally NAFR signed by PRIYANKA PRIYANKA VERMA VERMA Date:

2025.12.17

17:35:35 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 10733 of 2019

1 - Premdas Vaishnav S/o Shri Jhaduram Vaishnav Aged About 63 Years Sewaniwritt Pradhan Pathak Shaskiya Purva Madhyamik Shala Kewchi Vikaskhand Gaurella, Zila Bilaspur, Niwasi- Juna Bilaspur, Thana Juna Bilaspur, Jila Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Sachiv, Samanya Prashasan Vibhag, Shaskiya Karmachari Kalyan Shakha Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2 - Sachiv School Shiksha Vibhag, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3 - Zila Shiksha Adhikari, Bilaspur District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

4 - Vikas Khand Shiksha Adhikari, Gaurella Vikaskhand Gaurella, Zila Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

5 - Sambhagiya Sanyukt Sanchalak Kosh Lekha And Pension Bilaspur Sambhag, Zila Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Abdul Moin Khan, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Abdul Wahab Khan, Advocate For : Mr. Ritesh Giri, PL Respondents/State

Order On Board

17/12/2025

1. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the recovery order dated

22.11.2018 (Annexure-P/2) on account of erroneous pay fixation, even though the petitioner was superannuated on 31.12.2018.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was superannuated from the post of Headmaster, Premiddle School, Kewchi Block Gaurella, District Bilaspur. He submits that the said post belongs to the category of Class-III employee. He further submits that the parameters have been settled in the matter of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)¹ and that recovery from a retired employee, or from employees who are due to retire within one year, is impermissible;

therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State supports the impugned order and places reliance on the matters of High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Ors vs. Jagdev Singh, Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari and Chandi Prasad Uniyal and Ors vs. State of Uttarakhand and Ors³

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed with the petition carefully.

5. Recently in the matter of Jogeshwar Sahoo & Ors Vs. the District Judge, Cuttack and Ors⁴, an issue came up before the Hon'ble Supreme

1 (2015) 4 SCC 334

2 (2016) 14 SCC 267

3 (2012) 8 SCC 417

4 2025 INSC 449 : (SLP (C) No.5918/2024) decided on 04.04.2025

Court that whether recovery of amount extended to the appellants (therein) while they were in service is justified after their retirement, that too without affording any opportunity of hearing, wherein, their Lordships in the Supreme Court observed that restraining back recovery of excess payment is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, in exercise of judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is implemented. It is also observed that a government servant, particularly one in the lower rungs of service would spend whatever emoluments he receives for the upkeep of his family and if he receives an excess payment for a long period, he would spend it, genuinely believing that he is entitled to it, as any subsequent action to recover the excess payment will cause undue hardship to him. The material portion of the above judgment is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-

"8) The law in this regard has been settled by this Court in catena of judgments rendered time and again; Sahib Ram vs. State of Haryana⁵ Shyam Babu Verma vs. Union of India⁶, Union of India vs. M. Bhaskar and V. Gangaram vs. Regional Jt. Director⁸ and in a recent decision in the matter of Thomas Daniel vs. State of Kerala & Ors⁹

9) This Court has consistently taken the view that if the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee or if such excess payment was made by the em