2025:CGHC:57460 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 448 of 2020 Ram Singh Bharadwaj S/o Late Shri U.S. Bharadwaj, Aged About 64 Years, R/o Village - Dhurvakari, Post – Pachpedi, P.S. - Pachpedi Tahsil - Masturi, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Mahanadi Mantralaya, Police Station & Post Rakhi, Atal Nagar Raipur , District - Raipur Chhattisgarh

2 - Chief Medical and Health Officer Officer Of C.M.H.O. Korba, District -

Korba Chhattisgarh, 3 - Block Medical Officer, Office of B.M.O., Community Health Centre- Pali, District - Korba Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Advocate SHYNA For Respondent : Mr. Amandeep Singh, Panel Lawyer AJAY /State Digitally signed by SHYNA AJAY DN: cn=SHYNA AJAY, o=PERSONAL, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN SB.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari

Order on Board

1.

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the recovery order dated 4.1.2020 (Annexure P/2), for an amount of Rs.55,806/-, on account of excess payment due to wrong fixation of the pay for the period from 1.1.2007 to 30.6.2016.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner retired on 30.4.2018 from the post of Dresser and after his retirement, a recovery order has been passed on 4.1.2020. He submits that since the petitioner belonged to the category of Class-III employee, such a recovery is impermissible in light of the principle laid down in the judgment rendered in the matter of State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others¹. He further submits that the subject amount has already been recovered.

3.

Learned counsel for the other side would submit that since the excess payment was made to the petitioner, it has been recovered in accordance with law. In support of his submission, learned counsel would place reliance on the matter of High Court of Punjab &

Haryana and others Vs. Jagdev Singh, 26/11/2025

4.

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

1 (2015) 4 SCC 334

2 AIR 2016 SC 3523

Recently in the matter of Jogeshwar Sahoo & Ors Vs. the District Judge, Cuttack and Ors, 5., an issue came up before the Hon'ble Supreme 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 Haryana⁴, Shyam Babu Verma vs. Union of India⁵, Union of India vs. M. Bhaskar⁶ and V. Gangaram vs. Regional Jt. Director⁷ and in a recent decision in the matter of Thomas Daniel vs. State of Kerala & Ors⁸

9) This Court has consistently taken the view that if the excess amount was not paid on account of any

3 2025 INSC 449 : (SLP (C) No.5918/2024) decided on 04.04.2025

4 (1995) Supp (1) SCC 18

5 (1994) 2 SCC 521

6 (1996) 4 SCC 416

7 (1997) 6 SCC 139

8 (2022) SCC online SC 536

misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee or if such excess payment w