r— ?TW qT^^T rT^ 7?1TiTf^^ 3TlfcR5W, SP^ft^ rTq^T jU..?T.i ^"^sT^TI^""" 3lt*?* ^f^ /2002 Nm? ^r-sjy 48 q4 3n"pq5r ^^TrrTpT iTT^ q-S^T^ ^^ T. ^. ^ 28 ^&ft^ yTnsRT^- t^cTT mr^ ^a^* j • • • •T^S I* H'F?f1?T^' 5TT?T:T STTT ~ ?T1^ TTuTiF^ 'f^STr'»T, l^TcW rrqq;7 JCT»^T« 2. ^r%:T j ^3Tf^ TTPsn-^ rT^T^, f^m" THT^ ^.?T. 3- (T^T'tcRT^, £;R"i?5?q"^' 1^r* mr^' JB«^J 3TT^^? yqT^^CTTT ;^..-.._...... 3ntq^ T^ 3T*ri4cT OTrT 19 TT^T 7?m?1^? 3f1fcRi?or ylWnTq (985 bNBNIfc. H5GH COURT OF CHHATT3SQH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice PritJnker Diwaker) Wrat Petltson (S) No.4501of2005 PETSTSQNER Chhedram Sahu VERSUS RESPONDENTS The State of C.G. & others. Ms. Morisa Chhatri, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Sharma PL forthe respondents /State. WRJT PETJTION UNDERARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTiON OF IND1A ORDER (03.09.2009) With the consent of the counsei for the parties, the matter is heard finaily. 2. In the instant petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.3.1997 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Deputy Collector, Raigarh by which recovery of Rs. 10,192 with interest at the rate of 18 per cent has been sought to be made. !n the order impugned It has been mentioned that the petitioner has been paid the aforementioned sum as specia! pay for which he was not entitled. 3. Counsei for the petitioner submits that the order impugned has been passed without issuing any show cause notice or giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and therefore the same is not sustainable in law. She piaced reliance on the decislons of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sahib Ram Vs. State of Harvana & others1_& in the matter of Purshottam Lal Das & others Vs. State of Bihar & others2. in these two decisions it has been held by the Supreme Court that if the excess payment is made due to the wrong construction of relevant order by the authority concerned without any misrepresentation on the part of theemployee, no recovery can be ! 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 18 2(2006)11SCC492 ^ (^r —-2— • \''- made from the employee and if recovery is aiready made, it is liabie to be restrained. 4. Counsel for the respondents/State submits that the petitioner was working as Patwari and was hoiding the charge of Dharamjaygarh from 31.5.1979 to 10.8.1983. This aprt, he was given theadditional charge ofsome other Patwari Halka Number. He was inadvertentiy paid a sum of Rs. 10,192 which in fact he was not entitled to. According to him, State has every right to recover the excess payment made to its empioyees and therefore the order impugned is just and proper. He however fairiy admits that the opportunity of hearing before passing the said order was not given to the petitioner. 5. Heard counsei for the parties and perused the material avaiiabie on record and the judgments of the Supreme Court cited above. 6. in view of aforesaid factuai position of the case in hand and the law laid down by the Apex Cou.rt, the instant petition deserves to succeed and the order impugned dated 21.3.1997 (Annexure A-1) regarding recovery of Rs. 1 0,192/- is iiable to be set aside. 7. The resuit is that the petition is aliowed and the order impugned is set aside. !f the recovery has aiready been made, amount so recovered shail be refunded to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. However, iiberty is reserved to the respondents to take appropriate steps after complying with the principies of natural justice in accordance with law. 8. Resultantiy, petition succeeds. Sd/- pritinkerDiwakar Judge