2026:CGHC:9878 NAFR PAWAN KUMAR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN WPS No. 7145 of 2025 KUMAR JHA • Najma Rahim W/o S.A. Rahim Aged About 62 Years R/o 18/a, Rua Bandha Sector, Bhilai, P.S- Sector 6, Tehsil-Durg, District-Durg (C.G.) Post- Retired (Head Teacher) Government Primary School Maroda, District- Durg (C.G)

... Petitioner versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)

2. The Director Directorate Of Public Instructions(DPI) Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

3. The District Education Officer District- Durg (C.G.)

4. The Block Education Officer Durg, Block, District -Durg (C.G.)

5. Divisional Joint Director Treasury Accounts And Pension, Division Durg, District Durg (C.G.)

... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Virendra Verma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

ORDER ON BOARD

25/02/2026

1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition against the order of recovery dated

29.01.2025 stating that respondents have issued letter for recovery of amount paid in excess to petitioner threatening therein that if the amount is not paid within specified period therein the said amount will be deducted from retiral dues of petitioner and pursuant thereto in afraid of withholding of entire retiral dues petitioner has deposited Rs. 3,54,686, which was under duress and sought following reliefs.

“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order, set aside or direction quashing the impugned order dated 29.01.2025 (Annexure P-4) passed by Divisional Joint Director, Treasury Accounts and Pension, Durg, C.G. in the interest of justice.

10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order, set aside or directing the respondent to disburse the amount of Rs. 3,54,868 (Rupees Three Lakhs Fifty Four Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty Eight Only) with interest to the petitioner in the interest of justice.

10.3 That, any other relief which court may deem fit in the interest of equity justice and good conscience.”

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the letter dated 29.01.2025 is issued to petitioner just before two days of attaining age of superannuation mentioning that petitioner has been paid excess amount of salary by giving second time pay scale twice mistakenly and the excess payment paid was Rs. 7,20,817. It is contention of learned counsel for petitioner that when calculation with regard to the amount as proposed to be recovered as sought from petitioner of Rs. 7,20,817, it was not provided but in the letter of recovery it is mentioned that if the excess amount is not paid, then entire retiral dues of petitioner will be withheld. It is contention of learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner being Class-III employee even if any amount is paid in excess towards salary, recovery of the same is not permissible from the petitioner in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & ors vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & ors, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334. It is also contention of learned counsel for petitioner that even if consent is given by the employee for recovery of the amount as mentioned in the recovery letter then also in the light of decision in the case of State of CG vs. Labha Ram Dhruv passed in Writ Appeal No.264/2020 excess payment cannot be recovered from the employee if the amount released in his/ her favour is not on account of any misrepresentation or any fraud played by petitioner to the respondent-department.

3. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and submits that while evaluating the service record for calculating dues of petitioner it revealed that petitioner was paid second time pay scale twice and thereby excess payment is made to the petitioner. Respondent No.