2026:CGHC:9419 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9948 of 2025

1 - Balkrishna Tiwari S/o Late Dr. J.C. Tiwary Aged About 62 Years Reader Grade- I, Commercial Court (District Judge Level) Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.)

--- Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Principal Secretary, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Law And Legislative Affairs Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)

2 - The Registrar General Hon’ble High Court Of Chhattisgarh, Bodri Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.)

3 - The Principal District And Sessions Judge Balodabazar District-

Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.)

4 - Judge Commercial Court (District Judge Level), Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar District Raipur (C.G.)

5 - Joint Director Treasury Accounts And Pension, City Treasury, Nagar Ghadi Chowk, Raipur (C.G.)

6 - Kailash Sahu The Then A.S.A- Accounts And Pension City Treasury, Nagar Ghadi Chowk, Raipur, (C.G.) At Present A.S.A.- Pension Shakha, District Treasury, Durg (C.G.)

BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN ... Respondents Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD For Petitioner : Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate DEWANGAN For Respondent-State No.1 : Ms. Anuja Sharma, Dy.G.A.

For Respondents No.2 to 4 : Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

ORDER ON BOARD

23/02/2026

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

12.08.2025 seeking following reliefs :-

“10.1 May, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to call for the records of the case pertaining to the petitioner from the respondents for its kind perusal.

10.2 May, the Hon’ble Court be pleased to set-aside the impugned Notice dated 02.08.2025 and order dated 12.08.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.4 directing the petitioner to deposit the amount of Rs.2,22,603/- within 15 days.

10.3 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was working as Reader Grade-I under the respondent No.4 which is a Class-III post. After attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from service on 30.09.2025. Respondents have issued an order/notice dated 02.08.2025 (Annexure P-1) for recovery of an amount of Rs. 2,22,603/- on the ground that excess payment is made to petitioner due to wrong pay fixation. Excess amount is paid for the period from 02.10.2013 to 30.06.2025. It is contention of learned counsel for petitioner that 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 recovery of excess payment from the petitioner/Class-III employee is not permissible. He also contended that from the face of the order it is apparent that excess payment is not made to petitioner because of his misrepresentation or any fraud played by petitioner to the respondent-department. Recovery of amount if paid in excess towards salary cannot be made from him.

Therefore, action on the part of respondent-department in deducting the amount as mentioned towards excess payment is per se illegal and arbitrary.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and submits that from order Annexure P-1 it is apparent that excess payment has been made to petitioner due to wrong fixation of pay for the period from 02.10.2013 to 30.06.2025 and petitioner has also given undertaking for recovery of amount, if paid in excess to petitioner. He contended that the case of respondent is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Punjab and Haryana and others vs. Jagdev Singh, reported in (2016) 14 SCC 267, Chandi Prasad Uniyal vs. State of Uttrakhand and others reported in (2012) 8 SCC 417, Syed Abdul Qadir & Ors vs. State Of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2009 (3) SCC 475, Col. (Retd.) B.J. Akkara vs. The Govt. Of India &

Ors reported in 2006 (11) SCC 709

4. I have heard learned counse