^ COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR %rntPetition (S)No. _1582 of2009 ^ S.R. Netam, S/o Motiram Netam, aged about 60 years, R.'o Village Soridbhat, Dhamtai-i, District Dhamtari (CG). 1, State of Chhattisgai'h Through the Secretary, Techiiical Education aad Jan Shakti Niyojaii Department, DKS &awaii, Raipur (CG). 2. The Director Technical Education Department, Dh-ectorate ClAattisgai-h Raipur, District Raipur (CG). 3. Tbe Principal, GoveiTunent Polytechiiic College, Dhamtari, Disti-ict Dhamtari (CG). 4. The Jomt Director, Treasury Accdunts and Pension, Raipur, District Raipur (CG). v. 5. The Treasury Officer, District Treasury Office, Dhamtari, District Dhaintari (CG). (WB3T PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTtTLiTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'bleMr. Satish K.Aenihotri. J.) 'resent : Shri P.P. Sahu, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri MPS Bhatia, Deputy Govt. Advocate forthe State. •^^. (Passed on 26th day ofMarch, 2009) With Ihe consent ofthe parties, the matter is taken up for hearing, finally. By tbis petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 13.02.2009 (.4imexTire ,P/7), passed by the respondent No. 3, whereby it has beea direiifedto recover excess payment made to the petitioner. Tlie brief tacts, in nutsfaell, are that the pefitioner while worfcitig as Skilled Assistant, received the impugiied recovery order dated 13.02.2009 (Amiexure P/7), issued by tiie respondeiit No. 3, whereby, the District Treasury OfScer was directed to recover excess payment without affording an opportunity of hearing to tfae petitioner. I s^ t :; ('s l!ill';ii;:r!': q^ 3. Beitig aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition, stating that no recovery can be made without afrording an opportunity ofhearing to the petitioner; as such the order is illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable. 4. Leamed counsel appearing fer the petitioner subniits that there is no fault on the part ofthe petitioner and the amount was paid to fhem in aceordance with the pay scales, revised and fixed by the respondents fi-om time to time. The respondents cannot recover the amount, afa-eady paid to the petitioner, vvithout following the prmciples ofnatural justice. Leamed counsel further submits that the petitioner does not want to press other reliefs on merit, except that the amount which has already been paid to the petitioner camiot be recovered from on account of excess payment made to the petitioner during fhat period witliout affbrding an opportumty ofhearing.:. 5. On the other hand, leanied counsel appearing fbr the State/respondents submits that since tiie pay of the petitioner vvas fixed contrar^' to the provisioris and on scfutiny, it was found tliat excess amount has been paid, the same can be recovered from the petitioner. without afiording an oppoilunity ofhearing. 6. The Supreme Court, in the case of Sahib Ram Vs. State of'Haryana and others , m para 5 has held as under: "5. However, it is not on account of aiiy misrepresentation made by the appellant that the benefit oflugher pay scale was given to him but by \wong construction made by the Principal for wMch the appellant caimot be held to be at fault. Under the circumstances the aniount paid till date inay not be recovered from the appellant." The Supreme Qousl:, m the matter ofP. Tulsidas and others v. Goveniment of A.P. aad others , observed that the benefrt accrued earlier by way ofgrant of -fchigher pay or revised pay, caimot be taken away as the same is violative of ^^rticle 14 aad 16 ofthe Constitution oflndia being arbitran', unreasonable 11995Supp(l)SCC20 '\^IR2003SC43 Sahu 8. This Court, in the case of Vidyadhar Tiwari Vs. Tbe State of Clihattisgarh & Othere , has he!d that the excess payment, if any, made to the petitioner, he was not at fault and the amount received by him miglit have been used by adjustiug himself accordingly treating the same as lus salary. At this stage, directing recovery of the alleged excess amount from'the pensionary benefits/gi-atiity amount ofthe petitioner will not be just andproper. 9. In view ofthe fbregoing this petition is allowed m the terms ofthe order passed m the case ofVidyadhar Tiwari (supra) i.e. the impugned order dated 13.02.2009 (Annexure P/7) regarding recovery ofamount from the petitioner on account of excess paynient, is hereby quashed. Ifthe amount has been recovered, the petitioner is entitled to the said amoimt with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Liberty is reserved to fhe respondent au'thorities to take any steps as is permissible in accordance with law after affordmg due opportunity ofhearingto the petitioner. No order asto costs. 10. Consequently, pending applications stand disposed of. ^°,itv s^^5i 2006(1)MPHT105(CG) .t-^ ti 11:: \n^'