RAMKUMAR TODE vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010331432026 2026:CGHC:38898
SOURABH
BHILWAR
NAFR
Digitally signed by
SOURABH BHILWAR
Date: 2026.09.03
10:41:14 +0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 6459 of 2026
Ramkumar Tode Aged About 63 Years (Retired Inspector), S/o Late Shri
Jaylal Tode, R/o J-21, Rajdhani Vihar, Saddu, P.S.- Vidhansabha,
Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home
(Police), Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur,
(C.G.)
2 – Director, General Of Police Chhattisgarh Police Headquarters, Near
Mantralaya, Sector-19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur
(C.G.)
3 - Senior Superintendent Of Police Mungeli, District- Mungeli (C.G.)
4 - Joint Director, Treasury Account And Pension, Bilaspur, District-
Bilaspur, (C.G.)
5 - District Treasury Officer, Mungeli, District- Mungeli, (C.G.)
…. Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

2
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Satish Surya, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, Addl. Adv. General
(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU)
Order on Board
02/09/2026
1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of the
impugned order dated 10.06.2026 (Annexure P/6) passed by
respondent No.3/ Senior Superintendent of Police, Mungeli,
District Mungeli (C.G.) and further seeks a direction to the
respondent authorities to refund the recovered/ deducted amount.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who
was working on the post of Inspector (Class-III) in the Office of
respondent No.3, is aggrieved by the impugned order dated
10.06.2026 (Annexure P/6), whereby respondent No.3 has
directed recovery of a sum of Rs.7,19,193/- from the petitioners’
leave encashment amount on account of alleged excess payment,
without issuance of any show cause notice or affording an
opportunity of hearing. He submits that the alleged excess
payment was made pursuant to pay fixation by the department
during the period from 2007 to 2026 and was not attributable to
any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner. It is
further submitted that the recovery is impermissible in view of the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab
& Others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334 , as

3
the excess payment pertains to a period extending over several
years. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned recovery order
be quashed and the recovered amount, if any, be refunded to the
petitioner.
3. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents submits that at
the time of pay fixation, it was found that the petitioner's pay had
been erroneously fixed by clerical mistake, resulting in excess
payment of salary during the course of service.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
pleadings as well as the material available on record.
5. The principal issue that arises for consideration in the present
case is whether the respondents were justified in revising the pay
fixation of the petitioner and directing recovery of an amount of
Rs.7,19,193/- during his service period on the ground of
erroneous pay fixation, particularly when the petitioner was
holding a Class-III post, and there is no allegation of any
misrepresentation or fraud on her part. A further issue which
requires consideration is whether the impugned order could have
been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner and whether the same are sustainable in light of the law
laid down by the Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih (Supra).
6. In Rafiq Masih (Supra) , the Supreme Court held that while it is
not possible to postulate all situations of hardship where
payments have mistakenly been made by an employer, in the

4
following situations, a recovery by the employer would be
impermissible in law:
“(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III
and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D'
service). or
(ii) Recovery from retired employees, 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 have rightfully been required to
work against an inferior post.
(v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the
conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee,
would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an
extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance
of the employer's right to recover.
11. The principle enunciated in Proposition (ii) above
cannot apply to a situation such as in the present
case. In the present case, the officer to whom the
payment was made in the first instance was clearly
placed on notice that any payment found to have
been made in excess would be required to be
refunded. The officer furnished an undertaking while
opting for the revised pay scale. He is bound by the
undertaking."

5
7. From a perusal of the record, it is not in dispute that the petitioner
was holding a Class-III post. It is also not in dispute that there is
no material available on record to indicate that the petitioner had
obtained the alleged excess payment by practicing fraud,
misrepresentation or suppression of any material fact. The excess
payment, if any, appears to have arisen on account of an act
attributable to the employer.
8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the case of the petitioner
squarely falls within the categories carved out by the Supreme
Court in Rafiq Masih (Supra), inasmuch as the petitioner is
holding a Class-III post and the alleged excess payment relates to
a period much beyond preceding the issuance of the recovery
order. Consequently, recovery of the alleged excess amount from
the petitioner cannot be sustained in law.
9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 10.06.2026 (Annexure
P/6) is hereby set aside. Liberty is reserved to the respondents to
undertake a fresh exercise with regard to pay fixation of the
petitioner in accordance with law, after affording her an adequate
opportunity of hearing. It is, however, made clear that any
recovery of the alleged excess payment already made to the
petitioner shall be governed by the law laid down by the Supreme
Court in Rafiq Masih (supra).
10. The respondents are directed to release and refund to the
petitioner the amount, if any, recovered or withheld pursuant to

6
the impugned recovery order. The respondents shall further
ensure release of the amount already recovered, if any, payable
to the petitioner. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within
a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy
of this order.
11. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated
above.

Sd/-
(BIBHU DATTA GURU)
JUDGE
$. Bhilwar