a'-^--l 3^0 ..^" INTMEMON'BLEHIGHCOORTOFCHMATTISSARHAT BILASRUR WRITPETmON (S)NO. OF 2008 PETrTEONER ...•• cf^y^ ^sy ...-•^y ^•^ "y ;- ^ Smt. Medlina Ram alias Medlina Di.ibey wife wife of Shri Denial Ram; agecf about 61 yedrs, R/o village Lakhdsdr' Post Offiee Kathakoni, District Bilaspur, Retir'ed Auxiliary Nurses Midwifery (A.N.M.) (Officedfthe Chief Medical <& Health Officer) Bilaspur(G.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS :- ^l. <^. The State of Ghhattisgarh throygh : Secretary, Department of Health & Family Welfare, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (c-&-) The Chief Medical ghd l-l&alfh Officer, Bilaspur(G^.). . ; ^3. The Block Medieal OffiGer, Gofflmunity Mealth Centre, Takhatpur, District: Bilaspur (C.6.). The Joint Director, Tr'easUrieS, Accoynts and Pension, Bilaspur Division, Bjlaspur(C.G.). 5. District TreasUry Officer, District Bilaspur (C.6.). WRITPEnTIONUNbERARIICl.EZZlSOFTHE CONSntUTION.QR^NbIA ..-AIINMW-i'iBUNniUU ^ ffi^" HIGHCOURTOFCHHATT1SGHATBILASPUR M :j<,L-.«»4;H*f"" jjiN i •'s». PETITIONER (Hon. IVIr. Justice Pritinker Diwakei') Writ Petition (S) No. 5424 of 2008 Smt. Medlina Ram alias Medlina Dubey VERSUS RESPONDENTS The State of C.G. & others. Shri Sameer Behar, counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Sunita JainPL forthe respondents/State. WRITPETITION UNDERARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORDER (20.08.2008) With theconsent ofthe parties the matter is heard finaily. 2. Challenge in this petition is to the'order dated 24.8.2008 (AnnexureP-IO)bywhich recovery of Rs. 44,784 has been sought to be made from the petitioner. Petitioner who was working as Auxiliary Nurses Midwife (ANM) in the office of Chief Medical & Health Officer, Bilaspur, retired from service vide order dated 31.10.2007. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the recovery of the excess amount atlegedly paid to the petitioner at the time of pay fixation has not been established by the authorities concemed. He further submits that the order impugned regarding recovery of Rs. 44,784 from the petitioner has been passed without following the principle of natural justice as inthiscase no opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner before issuanceof the said order. He placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sahib Ram Vs. Stateof Harvana & others1 & in the matter of Purshottam Lal Das & others Vs. State^)f Bihar & ^- 1995 Supp. (I) SCC 18 3£- •0-- others^. 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 the employee, no recovery can be made from the employee and if recovery is already made, it is liable tobe restrained. 4. On the other hand counsel for the respondents/State supporting the order impugned submits that while in service the petitioner was paid the excess amount of Rs. 44,784 due fo the clerical mistake and therefore the same is required to be recovered. According to him the order impugned regarding recovery of the said amount is just and proper. He however admits that before passing the said order opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the petitioner. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and pemsed the material available on reeord. 6. Admittedly, while issuing the order impugned the petitioner has not been given any opportunity of hearing nor any show cause notice was issued to her. 7. Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and also the aforesaid legal position, this Court is of the view that petition deserves to be altowed and the order impugned dated 24.8.2008 (Annexure P-10) regarding recovery of Rs. 44,784 fe liable to be set aside. 8. The result is that the petition is allowed and the order impugned dated 24.8.2008 (Annexure P-10) is set aside. Petitioner is held to be entitled for all the consequential benefits. 8. Petition thus succeeds. l::-:.;:<,Sil^- :::: ?: ! Pfitinker Dhvakar ^;.'Judge.;;—!l (20(W)11SCC492 V