2026:CGHC:9770 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI WPS No. 270 of 2026 Digitally signed by SYED 1. Angleshwar Banjara S/o Ravidas Banjara Aged About 54 ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI D 20 a 2 te 6 : .02.25 Years Working As Head Constable No. 316 And Posted At

19:42:54 +0530 P.S. Ajak Mungeli, District Mungeli, C.G. R/o Deendayal Colony, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

2. Domru Singh Dhruwe S/o Ramcharan Dhruwe Aged About 44 Years Working As Head Constable No. 319 And Posted At P.S. Lalpur, District Mungeli C.G. R/o Village Nawagaondayali, House No. 6 Mungeli Dindori, District :

Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home / Police, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Director General Of Police (D G P) Police Head Quarter, Near Mahanadi Mantralaya Police Stationand Post Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Inspector General Of Police Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG)

4. Superintendent Of Police Mungeli, District : Mungeli (CG)

... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Banhiman Das, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Panel Lawyer S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

Order On Board

24/2/2026

1. Petitioners have filed this petition seeking following reliefs:-

“(I) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 24.06.2025 (Annexure P-1) issued by the respondent No.4, in the interest of justice.

(ii) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to refund the recovered amount of the petitioners with interest within stipulated time as per similar direction of this Hon’ble Court dated 24.06.2025 (Annexure P-3), in the interest of justice.

(ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.”

2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners are Class III employees working as Head Constable and posted in District Mungeli. Respondent No.3 passed the order on 24.6.2025 granting permission to recover Rs.1,65,410/- and R.s1,41,965/- from the petitioners on the ground that excess amount of salary due to wrong fixation of pay-scale has been paid to petitioners during the period from 24.9.2007 to 31.5.2025 and 01.07.2011 to 31.5.2025 respectively. He contended that the impugned order directing recovery from Class III employees is not permissible in view of decisions of State of Punjab & ors vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) &

ors, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 and order dated 22.9.2021 passed in WA No.264/2020 (State of Chhattisgarh vs. Labha Ram) and other connected matters.

3. Learned State Counsel does not dispute submission of learned counsel for petitioners that petitioner are holding Class-III post i.e. Head Constable. He, however, submits that excess salary is paid to petitioners due to wrong fixation of pay and said mistake is disclosed to the officials only when objection is being raised by the Treasure and Accounts Office. He submits that if payment is made to employee due to mistake of authorities concerned, it can be recovered and in support thereof, he places reliance on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Chandi Prasad Uniyal and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, reported in (2012) 8 SCC 417.

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

5. The issue regarding recovery from the employees either in service or after attaining the age of superannuation is no more res integra and has been settled in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para-18 has postulated certain categories and observed that recovery from them is impermissible. Paragraph 18 is quoted below for ready reference:-

"18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where paymen