o; — sS*- s-Qo£s HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No.5233/2000 CORAM: Hon'ble Shri S.R. Nayak, CJ & Hon'ble Shri D!|!D Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Petitioners RespondenSs 1. The StaSe of Madhya Pradesh. through Secretary, Watsr 2. 3. Ro Kssou'rces Department, Mantralaya, Va!!abh Bhawan, BHOPAL. The Chief Engineer, Hasdeo Basin Water Resourees Department, Bilaspur (MP) The -Joint Director of Treasury & Accounts and Pension, Bilaspur, Dn. Bilaspur (MP) Versus !.L. ShriR.C.VarmaS/oShri Retd. Asstt. Enginer, O/o The Chief Engineer, Hasdeo Basin Water Resourees, Biiaspur R/o Vinoba Nagar, Bilaspur, Tah. & Distt. BILASPUR (MP) The State Adminisirative Tribunai Raipur Bencfi, through rts Regtstrar. Shri Vinay Harit, iearned Dy. Advocate General for State/petitioner No. 1. Ashish Shn'.'astava, tearned counsei fof vespondent No. 1. Chr! fieh.eh VJIII I F\'9l 11311 ORAL ORDEF (Passed on 1st August, 2006) The followng oral order of the Court was passed by S.R.Nayak, f. '<-?.^. The 1 respondsnt having served in the Water Resouroes Department as Sub-Engineer, retired from service on attaining age of superannuation with effect from 30.4.1998. After his retirement, the Dspartment, on the ground that the first respondent's pay was wrongly fixed by administrative clerk in the year 1980 while extending Setection Grade to the 1 respondent, by ite order dated 4.9.1998, soughtto recover sum of Rs. 1,07.267/- being excessive payment made to him due to wrong ^a Sl fixation of his saiary in the year 1980. When that action of the Deparfment was assailed before She Madhya Pradesh AdministraSive Tribunal, Raipur Bench (for short the 'Tribuna!'), in Original Application NQ. 896/199. the Tribunai had come to the conciusion that the pay of the 1 respondant was wrongly fixed in the year 1980. Nevertheiess, the Tribunal took exception to She action of the Department to recover the excess amount from the pensionery benefrts payabte to the peSitioner on hts retirement on ths ground that the Department has faiied to prove th-at the 1 respondent jn any way misrepresented or contributed in wrong fixation of his satary in the year 1980. The Tribunal in the premise of the above finding and aiso placing reliance on the iudgment of the Apex Court in Nand Kishore Vs, Union of India quashsd ths order of recovery and directad that whatevsr money aiready recovered shauld be rsturned to the 1 respondsnt. Hence, Shis writ petition by the aggrieved State and its authorities. £.. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. it was contended by the learned Dy. Advocate Generat for the Stats that since, admittedly, the 1 respondent received excess money from the State, he should not be altowed to make unlawftri gain at the peril of the State interest. !t was highilghted that an Officer iike the 1 respondent who held responsible post in the Imgstion Department, must have known that his satary was wrong'y fixed and therefore, there was a duty cast on him to inform the Department to fix his salary correctiy and having failed to do so, he is not entitled to contest the action of the Department to recover the excess monsy paid to him. Per contra, learned counsej appearing for the 4St respondent would submit that in view of the clear finding recorded by the Tribuna! that there is no svidence to show that the 1 respondent had ..iK^- 1895 (31) A.T.C, 786. ^iSriaigSSiS^^'1 received excess sum of money by any act on his part, in'wew of the settled lav/, the Department particuiariy at this distance of time, should not be allowed to recover the excess money paid to the petitioner. !n support of fche submission, ieamed counsei for the 1 respondenf wouid piace reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sahibram Vs. State of Haryana & Others . 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied thatjn wrong fixation of the 1s respondent's pay scale in the year 1980, the 1 respondent had no roie to piay. !t is not the case of the Department rhat due to any misrepresentation or ma/afide acts on the part of the 1 respondenf, the pay scale of the 1 respondent was fixed wrongiy in the year 1980. ifthe Department Itseff on i{s own, may be fco/?affefe irsistake, dxed the pay scale of the petitioner wrongly in the year 1980 and went on paying on that basis, not for a ysar or two, but, tiii the 1 respondent a long Sapse of 18 years of service, in the year 1998, it would be totally inequitabte ad unjust to recover the entlre excess sum of money paid to the 1 respondent during the long span of 18 years in one-go out ofthe pensionery benefits payabie to the 1 respondent. There is no need for us to di'ate this aspect further, bscause, the judgment on which the Tribunal has rellance and the judgment cited by learned counsei for the 1 respondent and several others to foiiow tha suit have deprecated She action of the Stafe empioyer to recover the excsss of money to the emptoyee after long lapse of years, wherever, it was found that the concerned employee had not misrepresented or sisppressed or misied ths employer to pay excess money to him. For instance, in the case of Sahibram Vs. State of Haryana & Others , it was contended thatthe appeilant thereln did not possess the required 2. 1995 Supp (1) Suprems Court Cases 18. FT 4 educational qualifications and therefore, the appellant would not be entitted to the relaxation, and since the Principal erred in granting him the relaxation and on that basis, the appellant had been paid his salary on the revised scate, there was justification for recovering excess money paid to the appeliant. The Apex Court while re|ecting that submission was ?!eased to obser/e that it is not on account of any mterepresentation by the appeilant that the beneffl of She higher pay scale was given to him by the wrong constructlon made by She Principai himself for which the )pe!lant cannot bs held to be at fault. The same principle squarely to the facts of this case also. !S is nobody's case nor is there any proof to show that ths saiary of the 1 respondent was fixed wrongiy in the year 1980 due to any misrepressntation, suppression of facts or misteading on tt*,e part of the 1 respondent. if the paying authority iteelf without properiy understanding the law and appreciating what is the appropriate pay scaie attached to the post heid by the 1 respondent in ths year 1980, granted a wrong pay-scaie to him and proceeded to pay excess amount for 18 years, if wouid be totalty unjust and improper for the State at ttiis distanca of time, that too, after the 1 respondent retlred from service on attaining the age of superannuatlon to recover excess -amount in one-go. Looking from that angte also, we cannot take any exception to the impugned order ofthe Tribunal. The writ petffion is devoid of merit and it is accordingiy dismissed. lo costs. . Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd-/ • Diiip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge sai f'SI aa