2026:CGHC:13375 NAFR PAWAN KUMAR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA WPS No. 2153 of 2024 • Smt. Divya Joshi W/o Late Basant Kumar Joshi Aged About 55 Years R/o H.

No. - 60 Sanjay Nagar, Ward No. 13 Daundi Lohara, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of School Education , Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. The Director Public Instructions, Indrawati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. The District Education Officer Balod, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh

4. The Principal Govt. Boys Higher Secondary School, Daundi, Lohara, District :

Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioners : Ms. Juhi Anguria, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Aditya Tiwari, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

ORDER ON BOARD

19/03/2026

1. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that husband of petitioner while working on the post of Principal, Govt. Boys Higher Secondary School, Daundi, Block Lohara, District Balod, C.G. died in harness on 15.02.2024. At the time of computation of death-cum-retiral dues to be paid to petitioner, Respondent No. 3 issued an order on 25.02.2024 for recovery of amount of Rs. 3,62,487 stating therein that excess payment is paid to deceased employee (husband of petitioner) due to wrong fixation of pay w.e.f. 01.01.2016. She contended that notice of recovery is issued after death of employee and therefore recovery is not permissible under the law. In support of his contention he places reliance upon decision in case of State of Punjab & ors vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & ors, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, Thomas Daniel vs. State of Kerala reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC

536.

2. On the other hand, learned State counsel does not dispute the submission of learned counsel for petitioner with regard to engagement of husband of petitioner as Principal, Govt. Boys Higher Secondary School, Daundi, Block Lohara, District Balod, C.G. Referring to document enclosed along with reply as Annexure R-3, he submits that deceased employee has given an undertaking, in which it is mentioned that if any excess payment is made it is to be recovered from the employee and therefore the order passed by Respondent No. 3 is correct and does not call for any interference.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. From the arguments which is advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties it is not in dispute that husband of petitioner died in harness on 15.02.2024 while working on the post of Principal, Govt. Boys Higher Secondary School, Daundi, Block Lohara, District Balod, C.G.

5. Recovery which is sought from petitioner is towards excess payment made to husband of petitioner during the period while he was in service on account of wrong fixation of pay. It is not the case of respondents that excess payment is made to husband of petitioner due to misrepresentation or suppression of fact or any fraud played by him with respondent-department.

6. In case of Rafiq Masih (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court considering the issue of recovery of amount paid in excess has summarized the situations where in certain cases, even recovery from the employee by the employer would not be permissible in law. Further in the case of Thomas Daniel (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered its earlier decision in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) and set aside the order of recovery from the appellant therein. In Para-18 of the case of Rafiq Masih (supra) it was observed thus:-

“18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers w