The Chhattisgarh High Court reaffirms the bar on monetary recovery from Class-III employees where no fraud or misrepresentation is alleged, following the Supreme Court’s established precedent in Rafiq Masih and its further clarifications. This decision cements the principle as binding authority for all subordinate courts and public sector employment disputes.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPS/3274/2023 of DILESHWAR PRADHAN Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010159312023 |
| Date of Registration | 17-05-2023 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMITENDRA KISHORE PRASAD |
| Court | High Court Of Chhattisgarh |
| Bench | Single Bench (Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad) |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court precedents: Rafiq Masih, Thomas Daniel, Jogeswar Sahoo |
| Type of Law | Service Law / Employment Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether recovery of excess payment from Class-III employees is barred where payment was not due to any fraud or misrepresentation. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The recovery of excess amounts erroneously paid to Class-III employees, absent any fraud or misrepresentation on their part, is impermissible. The hardship or inequity faced by such employees outweighs the employer’s right to recover. This position is squarely covered by binding Supreme Court authority, especially Rafiq Masih, Thomas Daniel, and Jogeswar Sahoo. The principles in these cases were directly applied to the facts of this case, resulting in the setting aside of the impugned recovery order. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon | Settled principle that recovery from low-cadre employees when no fault is attributed to them is inequitable; cited Supreme Court categories where recovery is impermissible. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioners (Class-III employees in the Chhattisgarh Armed Forces) sought to quash a recovery order for alleged excess Naxal Duty Allowance payments. The impugned recovery was initiated without notice or hearing, and without any evidence of employee fault, fraud, or misrepresentation; overpayment arose from official misinterpretation. |
| Citations |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh; State and public sector employers in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | High Courts of other states; similar public employment disputes nationally |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court reiterates that recovery of excess payment from Class-III/Group C employees is barred when payment was not caused by the employee’s fraud or misrepresentation, directly applying the Supreme Court’s categories from Rafiq Masih.
- The principle applies even where the overpayment resulted from the employer’s own administrative error or misinterpretation.
- Employers must refund any amounts already recovered under such impermissible orders, within a specified timeline or pay interest.
- Procedural irregularities—such as recovery orders sans prior notice or hearing—were also flagged as contrary to natural justice, but the main relief flows from the application of Supreme Court precedents.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court examined whether the recovery of excess allowance payments made to Class-III government employees, where no element of fraud or misrepresentation existed, could be sustained.
- The High Court relied directly on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, which laid out specific circumstances where recovery is forbidden, including for Class-III and IV employees.
- It also referred to and applied Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala and Jogeswar Sahoo v. District Judge, Cuttack, each of which confirmed and extended Rafiq Masih’s principle.
- The Court distinguished between employer errors and employee wrongdoing, emphasizing that only in the latter scenario can recovery proceed.
- The facts showed overpayment was due to administrative misinterpretation, not misrepresentation or fraud by employees.
- The Court thus found the petitioners’ case to fit squarely within the prohibited category of recoveries and set aside the impugned order.
- Directions were issued for refund of any recovered amounts within 90 days, failing which interest would accrue.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners:
- The recovery order is illegal and violative of natural justice, issued without notice or hearing.
- Petitioners, as Class-III employees, were paid Naxal Duty Allowances by employer’s own interpretation of applicable notifications.
- There is no fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment by the petitioners.
- Following Supreme Court decisions (Rafiq Masih, Thomas Daniel), recovery from Class-III employees is impermissible and inequitable.
Respondents/State:
- Due to wrong pay fixation entered in service records, the petitioners were paid in excess.
- Excessive payments are apparent from pay scale records and require recovery.
Factual Background
The case concerns eleven Class-III police constables posted in designated Naxal-affected areas of Chhattisgarh, who were paid Naxal Duty Allowances based on an official notification. Later, notices were issued for recovery of “excess” amounts, allegedly paid due to a misinterpretation of the 2009 notification by authorities. The petitioners received no notice or opportunity for hearing prior to issuance of the recovery order. No claim of fraud or misrepresentation was made against the petitioners.
Statutory Analysis
The Court examined the Notification dated 17.07.2009 granting Naxal Duty Allowance to specified categories of police and armed forces employees. The legal analysis focused on the interpretation and application of Supreme Court judgments governing recovery of payments under service law, particularly for Class-III employees. No direct statutory provision was read down or interpreted; the discussion was based on established judicial principles.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were indicated in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations were identified in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms and applies settled Supreme Court law (Rafiq Masih and successors).
Citations
- 2025:CGHC:44982
- State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334
- Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 536
- Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar (2009) 3 SCC 475
- Jogeswar Sahoo v. District Judge, Cuttack, 2025 SCC Online SC 724