Recovery of excess pay from Class-III employees is impermissible in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation.

The Petitioner, a Constable (Class-III employee) appointed on 09.01.1991, challenged a recovery order dated 08.01.2026 issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Raipur.

The order sought to recover ₹6,10,111 for excess payments made between January 2006 and December 2025 due to incorrect pay fixation.

It was undisputed that the excess payment was not a result of any fraud or misrepresentation by the Petitioner.

The Respondent-State further sought an undertaking from the Petitioner to deduct this amount from his retiral dues.

1. Whether the recovery of excess pay from a Class-III employee is legally permissible when the payment was made due to an error by the department and not due to fraud by the employee.

2. Whether an undertaking or consent for recovery obtained from a Class-III or Class-IV employee overrides the protections against recovery established by the Supreme Court.

The Court primarily applied the principles established in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334, which prohibits recovery from Class-III/Class-IV employees or when the excess payment covers a period exceeding five years.

It relied on Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 536, affirming that relief against recovery is granted not because of a right to the money, but to prevent hardship.

The court applied the clarification from High Court of Punjab and Haryana v. Jagdev Singh, (2016) 14 SCC 267, as interpreted by the Division Bench in State of CG v. Labha Ram Dhruv (WA No. 264/2020), holding that even if an undertaking is given, recovery remains impermissible for Class-III and Class-IV employees.

The Court observed that the Petitioner holds a Class-III post and the department admitted the excess payment resulted from their own wrong pay fixation, excluding any element of fraud by the Petitioner.

Applying the Rafiq Masih criteria, the Court found the recovery "iniquitous and harsh" as it targeted a lower-tier employee for a decade-old administrative error.

The Court reasoned that such consent is often obtained under the pressure of withholding retiral dues.

Following the Labha Ram Dhruv precedent, the Court clarified that Jagdev Singh did not overrule Rafiq Masih but merely distinguished it; thus, the protection for Class-III/IV employees remains absolute regardless of an undertaking.

The Writ Petition was allowed, and the recovery order dated 08.01.2026 was quashed. The Respondents were directed to refund any recovered or deducted amounts to the Petitioner within four months, failing which the amount would carry an interest of 8% p.a. from the date of the order until realization.