.•4-» •y o BEroRE THS STATE ADMINIS1RATIVE TRIBUNAL BE»:H RAIPBR 47y<A5'~S^2-^/o;;- Applicant smt. Bandna Bokare aged 30 years W/o late shri Ufnesh Kunar Bokare Shanksrpur 'i'&rd N3. 7, .Sajnandgaon. Versue Non-applicants l stats ft Govt.of M.p. Through the Secretary, Tribal Weirare Deptt. Ballatoh Bhawan, BHOPSL. 2. PrincJ.pal, Govt.Hlgher Secondary Scbool Bharritola, Oj.stt.ftajnandgaon. 3. Joint Director, Treasury Accounts & Pension, OhadA Chowk. RAIPUS M.P. APELICATION U/S 19 O P THB ADMINISTR7.iT IVE TRIBUNAL ACT 1 98S adhya Pradesh and SJngle Bench: Hon'bie Shrj Manindra Mohan Shrivastava. J. WRff PETITiON SS) N0.3328/2005 The S others Shri Somkant Verma, Shri Arvind Dubey, P.L. for '.^3< /•' u^' ei for the petifione,' th (Passed on this 10'" day of March, 201 ith the consent of iearned counsel for the parties, the petition is heard and validity of ;s.8262/- was (2) By this petition, petitioner has calted in question the te{ orde.r dated 31-03-1998 (Annexure A-1) by which recovery of directed from the amount of gratuity payable to Umesh Kumar B offhe petitioner, who died on 18-07-1996, whiie in service. (3) Learned counse! for fhe petitioner submits that the impugned ordsr of recovery is iilegai. He submits that the deceased employee-Umesh Kusnar Bokare was paid salary and later on, it was found that excess amount was paid on account of wrong pay fixatlon. If this was Ehe reason, in the absence of any fraud or misrepresentation, even if it is found that the amount vvas wrongiy paid, it could not be recovered. In addition, it has aiso been submitted that in any case, it ought to precede an enquiry by giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner who was recipient of the amount of the gratuity, after the death of her hysband. Learned counse! for the petitioner further contended that no recovery from She amount of gratuity payabie to the petitioner coutd be made except by the authorifr/ and in the manner prescribed under M.P./C.G. Civi! Serv'ices Pension Ruies, 1976. •A ^s .,. '^/ '^ SBsll^' ^ (4) Per contra, learned counse! for the respondents submits that amount of Rs.8262/- was paid ih excess to the deceased-Umesh Kumar Bokare' on account of wrong fixation of pay. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not entstled to the said amount yet payment was made to him. (5) There is rfbthing on record nor any p!eading of the respondent that wrong fixation was an outcome of any fraud, misrepresentation or misleading act on the part of the deceased-Umesh Kumar Bokare. Assuming for the argument sake that wrong fixation was made which resulted in excess payment, whafsoever excess payment has been made could not be recovered. It is '.'/el! setti'ed that where excess payment has been made, no recover^ couid be made except in cases where excess payment was resulted by fraud or mlsrepresenSation. (6) In view of the above finding, 1 do not consider it necessary to dwel! into other aspects of the matter. Consequentiy, the petition is ailowed and the order of recovery dated 31-03-1998 (Annexure A-1) of Rs.8262/- is set aside. Petitioner, widow of deceased empioyee-Umesh Kumar Bokare, shal! be entit!sd to refund of this amount within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order along with interest at the rate prevalent from tlme to tims. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge