Chhattisgarh HC Bars Recovery of Rs 6.26 Lakh From Retired Class-III Police Constable, Orders Refund in Three Months

The High Court of Chhattisgarh held that recovery of excess pay due to wrong pay fixation cannot be made from a retired Class-III employee, even where a consent letter was obtained under pressure.

The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur has allowed a writ petition filed by Tulsi Ram Bhardwaj, a retired Sub-Inspector-grade constable of the Chhattisgarh Police, directing the State to refund Rs 6,26,104 recovered from him on account of alleged excess pay arising from wrong fixation of pay. Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, sitting singly, held the recovery to be impermissible in law, applying the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Punjab & Ors v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors, (2015) 4 SCC 334. The court found that Bhardwaj held a Class-III post, the excess was not caused by any fraud or misrepresentation on his part, and the consent letter obtained from him was secured under the threat of withholding retiral dues. The State was directed to refund the amount within three months, failing which it would carry interest at 6% per annum.

The Recovery and the Petitioner’s Service History

Tulsi Ram Bhardwaj, a resident of Village Pasid in District Sakti, was working as a constable holding a Class-III post in the Police Department. He retired from service on 28 February 2026.

Prior to his retirement, the respondent authorities issued a letter demanding recovery of Rs 6,26,104 from him, the amount representing excess salary paid due to wrong fixation of pay. The petitioner's case was that neither misrepresentation nor fraud on his part had caused the excess payment; the error lay entirely with the department.

Facing the threat that his retiral dues would be withheld if he refused, Bhardwaj submitted a consent letter on 21 May 2025. He was then required to deposit Rs 6,00,000 in the name of the Superintendent of Police, Raipur, through a Treasury Challan, and a further Rs 26,404 was deducted from his salary for February 2026. He thereafter approached the High Court seeking a direction to refund the entire recovered amount.

The State’s Defence: Consent as Validation

Counsel for the State did not dispute that the petitioner held a Class-III post or that he had since retired. The State's primary defence was that the deduction had been made pursuant to the consent letter filed as Annexure R-1 and that there was no arbitrariness in recovering an amount that had been paid in excess.

The State argued that the petitioner's voluntary agreement to repay foreclosed any challenge to the recovery.

The Rafiq Masih Framework and Its Application

Justice Bibhu Datta Guru examined the settled legal position on recovery of excess pay from government employees, as summarised by the Supreme Court in Rafiq Masih. In paragraph 18 of that decision, the Supreme Court had identified categories of employees from whom recovery would be impermissible in law. The first two categories directly relevant here were:

• Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ service).
• Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year of the order of recovery.

The court noted that the petitioner fell squarely within category (i): he was a Class-III employee. It was also undisputed that the excess payment had not arisen from any fraud or misrepresentation by the petitioner.

The State had cited High Court of Punjab and Haryana & Ors v. Jagdev Singh, (2016) 14 SCC 267, where the Supreme Court had examined the effect of undertakings given by employees. Justice Guru addressed this directly. He pointed to a Division Bench decision of the Chhattisgarh High Court in WA No. 264/2020 (State of CG v. Labha Ram Dhruv), which had considered both Rafiq Masih and Jagdev Singh together. The Division Bench had observed that Jagdev Singh had clarified but had not overruled Rafiq Masih. Crucially, the protection afforded to Class-III and Class-IV employees under Rafiq Masih remained intact regardless of whether an undertaking or consent had been given.

The Division Bench in Labha Ram Dhruv had further noted that the Revision of Pay Rules, 2009 and 2017 contained no enabling provision allowing the employer to compel an employee to furnish an undertaking as a basis for recovering excess pay. Even absent such a rule, an undertaking given by a Class-III or Class-IV employee would not override the bar set by Rafiq Masih.

Consent Obtained Under Threat of Withholding Retiral Dues

A significant factual issue before the court was whether the consent letter could be treated as voluntary. The petitioner's case was that consent was obtained on 21 May 2025 under the threat that retiral dues would be withheld if he refused. He retired on 30 September 2025.

Justice Guru found that this submission “cannot be overlooked” given the timeline: consent was extracted roughly four months before retirement, precisely when a Class-III employee approaching superannuation would have the least bargaining power. The court held that the petitioner could not be compelled to return an amount paid by the respondents on their own account, without any misrepresentation or fraud on his part.

Why the Reasoning Matters

The judgment reinforces that the bar against recovery from Class-III and Class-IV employees recognised in Rafiq Masih operates as a legal prohibition, not merely an equitable guideline that can be circumvented by obtaining the employee's agreement. Departmental practice of extracting consent letters from retiring employees, often under the implicit threat of delayed settlement of terminal dues, does not transform an impermissible recovery into a permissible one.

The court's reliance on the Chhattisgarh Division Bench in Labha Ram Dhruv also signals consistency in the High Court's approach: where the Rules themselves do not authorise a refund undertaking mechanism, such undertakings carry no legal weight against the protection Rafiq Masih confers on lower-category employees.

Order

The writ petition was allowed. The respondents — the State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of Home; the Police Commissioner, Raipur; and the Superintendent of Police, Raipur — were directed to refund the recovered amount of Rs 6,26,104 to Tulsi Ram Bhardwaj within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. If the refund was not made within that period, the recovered amount would carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum.