2026:CGHC:11343 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 798 of 2024

1 - Anil Xess S/o Cyril Xess Aged About 46 Years Presently Working As Teacher (L.B.) At Govt. Middle School Sardega, Village Sardega, Block Lailunga, Tah. Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh, C.G. Pin-496115 --- Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Distt. Raipur, C.G.

2 - District Education Officer Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh, C.G. 3 - Block Education Officer Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh, C.G.

4 - Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh, C.G.

--- Respondent(s)

(Cause title is taken from CIS system)

For Petitioner : Mr. Animesh Verma, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Lav Sharma, P.L.

SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

Order On Board

10/03/2026

1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following relief (s) :-

BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN “10.1 Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus by setting Digitally signed aside the recovery notice dated 18.10.2023 (Annexure by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN P-1) initiated by the Block Education Officer Lailunga, District Raigarh.

10.2 Issue a writ in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents by directing them to refund the paid arrears.

10.3 Issue any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.”

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner, who is holding the post of Teacher (LB) has been paid the amount towards arrears of pay on account of payment of revised pay scale. Subsequently, letter is issued to petitioner on 18.10.2023 (Annexure P-1) for recovery of the amount stating therein that excess payment has been made to petitioner. Petitioner being Class-III employee, recovery is not permissible, even if excess amount is paid mistakenly. In support of his contention he places reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab & ors vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc., reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, in case of Thomas Daniel Vs. State of Kerala & Ors (2022 SCC Online SC 536, and in case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others vs. Jagdev Singh, reported in (2016) 14 SCC 267, and submits that recovery of amount paid mistakenly to Grade-III employee is not permissible.

3. Learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that the amount for which petitioner is entitled after re-fixation of regular pay scale from 30.06.2016, however, arrears of revised pay scale has been computed from date of initial appointment, therefore, excess amount has been paid to petitioner. At the time of computation of amount or payment of arrears, petitioner has given undertaking, therefore, there is no error in the action taken by respondents by issuing a letter Annexure P-1 for recovery of the amount of excess payment made to petitioner.

4. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner submits that even if undertaking is given by petitioner, then also in terms of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, recovery from Class-III employee is impermissible, therefore, no recovery can be affected from the petitioner. He further contended that from such employee even if some consent is obtained subsequent to making of excess payment then also recovery is not permissible and placed reliance on the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WA No.264/2020 (State of CG vs Labha Ram Dhruv) and WA No.265/2020 (State of CG and others vs. Roshan Lal Baghel). He also submits that the issue with regard to undertaking given by the employees came for consideration before the Full Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in case of The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Jagdish Prasad Dubey, reported in 2024 Vol.-II MPLJ 198 wherein it is held that undertaking is not enforceable.

5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the reply submitted by State.

6. In the case of