Order On Board

1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-

10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to be returned the above wrongly deducted amount 6,26,104 to the Petitioner in the interest of justice.

10.2 Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner stood retired from service on 28/02/2026. He contended that at the fag end of his service, respondent authority has issued letter for recovery of amount of Rs.6,26,104/-. Petitioner was compelled to give consent for deduction of amount from salary. He was threatened that if the consent is not given, his retiral dues will be withheld and accordingly petitioner submitted consent. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.26,404/- is deducted from the salary of the month of February, 2026. Even after the petitioner has deposited Rs.6,00,000/- in the name of Superintendent of Police, Raipur through Treasury Challan. Recovery which is said to be made from petitioner is against excess payment made to him towards salary due to wrong fixation of pay. Excess payment is not on account of any suppression of fact or fraud played by petitioner with respondent authority. Petitioner is Class-III employee and therefore recovery of excess amount made to petitioner after lapse of long time is not permissible. In support of his submission he places reliance upon decision in case of State of Punjab & ors vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & ors, reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State oppose submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that it is not in dispute that petitioner stood retired from service holding Class-III post. However, deduction is made pursuant to consent given by petitioner to the department in this regard. Recovery is against excess payment made to petitioner due to wrong fixation of pay. Consent letter is also filed as Annexure R-1. There is no arbitrariness on the part of respondent in deducting the amount which is paid in excess to petitioner.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with writ petition.

5. From the arguments which is advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties it is not in dispute that petitioner stood retired from post of Constable which is Class-III post.

6. Recovery which is made from petitioner is towards excess payment made to him due to wrong fixation of pay. It is not the case of respondent that excess payment is made to petitioner due to misrepresentation or suppression of fact or any fraud played by petitioner with respondent.

7. 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. 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