Order on Board

1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 07.11.2025 by which respondent No.3 directed for recovery of Rs.1,93,930/- from petitioner which was erroneously paid to him on account of wrong pay fixation.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner is working as Head Constable in the Police Department, which is a Class III cadre post, and with the passage of time, he has been extended benefit of revision of pay scale. All of a sudden, vide order impugned dated 7.11.2025, respondent No.3 has directed for recovery of Rs.1,99,930/- from petitioner on the ground that excess payment is made to him due to wrong pay fixation. He submits that alleged excess amount of salary has been paid to petitioner on account of wrong pay-fixation, which was done by the respondents, and therefore, petitioner cannot be held responsible in any manner. He further submits that petitioner being a Class III employee, respondents are not entitled to recover amount which was erroneously paid to petitioner, without any misrepresentation or fraud on his part. In support of his submission, he places reliance on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab & ors vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & ors, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334 and Thomas Daniel V. State of Kerala & ors, reported in (2022) LiveLaw (SC) 438.

3. He further submits that even if at any point of time, petitioner has given consent for recovery of amount if paid in excess, then also excess amount cannot be recovered from salary of petitioner being a Class-III employees. In support of his submission, he places 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 lastly contended that the entire recovery is made without any notice or opportunity of hearing and is patently illegal being in violation of principles of natural justice.

4. Learned State Counsel would submit that petitioner was mistakenly paid excess salary on account of wrong pay fixation and therefore, the same has been ordered to be recovered. He further submits that petitioner had submitted undertaking mentioning that if any payment is made to him in excess, he will return the same or the authorities will be at liberty to recover it from him. Therefore, the petitioner is now estopped from challenging the impugned recovery order. In support of his contention he places reliance on judgment rendered in case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana & ors vs Jagdev Singh, reported in (2014) 14 SCC 267

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

6. In the 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. In Para-18 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 herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:

(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group C and Group D service).

(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.

(iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.

(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should h